Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Cardiff Gas Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Preston Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

AGRICULTURAL PRICES (IRELAND).

Return ordered "showing, to the latest year available, for Ireland as a whole, (1) the annual average prices for each year from 1881; (2) the annual average prices for each period comprised in the period from 1881 of five years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, and 25 years, and for the period of six years from 1909; such prices to be compiled from the returns of prices of crops, live stock, and other Irish agricultural products heretofore published from time to time by the Irish Land Commission, or the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, or from other information in the possession of those Departments."—[Colonel Newman.]

ULTIMUS HÆRES (SCOTLAND) (ACCOUNT AND LIST OF ESTATES).

Return ordered of Abstract Account "of the Receipts and Payments of the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Scotland, in the year ended the 31st day of December, 1920, in the administration of Estates and Treasure Trove on behalf
of the Crown; and of alphabetical List of Estates which fell to the Crown as Ultimus Hæres in Scotland, administered by the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, in the same year."—[Mr. Hilton Young.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

DISABLEMENT PENSIONS.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, on the 11th March, Sergeant R. Bentham, No. 34,566, Royal Defence Corps, and now residing at Golborne, appeared before a medical board; whether a 30 per cent. pension for 12 months was granted; whether the pension has yet been paid; and, if not, will he, in view of this man's unemployment, expedite the payment?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): A difficulty as regards entitlement has arisen in this case, but, pending a decision, an interim award of pension at the rate of 30 per cent. has been made, and payment, with all arrears owing, has been authorised.

DISABLED MEN (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).

Captain Viscount CURZON: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the Ministry could occupy some of the vacant wards in hospitals for the accommodation of disabled men, and so release hut accommodation, such as Ruskin Park, and benefit the hospitals?

Mr. MACPHERSON: This hospital was transferred to the Ministry of Pensions by the War Office authorities. It has been fitted with special orthopædic out-patient arrangements, and special sections for treatment of disabled officers and nurses. It has been found to provide the most convenient and, incidentally, the most economical centre for treating the large body of the disabled in that district.

Viscount CURZON: Is it not possible to utilize vacant wards in hospitals of this character and so release hut accommodation?

Mr. MACPHERSON: We are doing a great deal in the way of utilising many wards in hospitals, but in this case this is not possible owing to the special equipment arrangements.

BELLAHOUSTON HOSPITAL.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the inquiry into the administration of Bellahouston hospital is a private one; and whether, in view of the general interest in the matter, he will order the proceedings to be conducted in public?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider this matter. In view of the fact that the interest taken in this question is considerable in Glasgow, it is felt that they would like to have published a record of the proceedings from day to day?

Mr. MACPHERSON: In response to a request for an impartial inquiry, I appointed a Committee the names of the members of which commanded the respect of all people in Scotland. My hon. Friend knows that in this inquiry the medical sheets of the men may be asked for, and I cannot be a party to the public disclosure of such information.

Mr. MACLEAN: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the regional director, when asking names from ex-service men's associations to form an advisory committee in Glasgow, invited names from the International Union of Ex-service Men; if so, what reply was made; whether he is aware that this organisation was principally concerned in pressing for an inquiry into the alleged maladministration of Bellahouston Hospital; and whether this action is responsible for their exclusion from the advisory committee?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no information that the International Union of Ex-Service Men is representative of ex-service men in that city to any great extent. That body has been requested to furnish a complete list of its members in Glasgow, but that request has been refused. I am satisfied that the interests of ex-service men are fully looked after by the 26 representatives of the four ex-service associations who already serve on the Advisory
Committee. If, however, the International Union will satisfy the Regional Director in Scotland as to the strength of their membership, I am prepared to consider their being invited to send a representative to serve upon the Glasgow Ex-Service Men's Advisory Committee.

Mr. MACLEAN: Was a request made to this International Union of Ex-Service Men to furnish a list of their members? Was it made by the Regional Director when that body intimated its intention of submitting evidence to the inquiry? Was consent for these men to be present made contingent on their supplying a list of their members and did not the Union consider that the demand was out of all proportion for the purposes of the inquiry and therefore decline to furnish the list.[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]

Viscount CURZON: On a point of Order—

Mr. MACLEAN: The last part of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!

Mr. MACLEAN: On the point of Order. The last part of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman contained the statement that this Union had declined to give the list of members. This has only been asked for once, and that on a different occasion—

Mr. SPEAKER: Supplementary questions should be brief and clear. I wanted to ascertain whether it was a right question to put, and that is why I interrupted the hon. Member.

Mr. MACPHERSON: It is perfectly true that the Union was asked to furnish a list of its members. I had already appointed representatives of four outstanding ex-service men's organisations and I thought I was entitled to ask the number of members of this body as it stands to reason that representation should be in proportion to membership. I think I have met my hon. Friend's point because during the whole of the proceedings of this impartial judicial tribunal three of its members have been present.

Mr. MACLEAN: Did the right hon. Gentleman call on the other organisations present at the inquiry and giving evidence there to produce similar information as to their membership?

Mr. MACPHERSON: No, there was no necessity, as in their case the information was well-known to the Regional Director. It was only in regard to this International Union that we had not the information.

Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that the International Union of Ex-Service Men only represents a very small and very extreme section? Is it not misrepresentative of the opinions of ex-service men as a whole?

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the dependant's pension allowed in the case of the case of the late Stoker E. J. Cullis, No. 111,065, Port Talbot, H.M.S. "Indefatigable," has been reduced from 15s. per week to 5s. per week on the ground that the dependant is able to perform work of a light nature; whether he is aware that this decision has been come to without any medical examination or any effort made by the pension authority to ascertain his physical condition; that the dependant in question has been unable through injury to follow his employment for over six years; that he has made several attempts to resume his employment and other light employment and failed; that quite recently he was specially examined on behalf of his employers and that his weekly compensation is being paid without any objection; whether it is the considered policy of his Department to pronounce a dependant, in the circumstances, fit for light employment without reference to medical examination and to prejudice the claim to weekly compensation; and whether he will state by whose authority the secretary to the Central Glamorgan local committee refuses the dependant the right to prosecute his appeal through his committee?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am making further inquiry into this case and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. MACLEAN: 7.
asked the Minister whether he is aware that the wife and children of Thomas M'Convey have been refused any allowance on the ground that T. M'Convey was not a soldier, but a working labourer; whether M'Convey's record shows that he joined the Army in 1895, but was claimed off as he was under age; that he joined the 4th Argyll and
Sutherland Highlanders in 1897; that he joined, in 1899, the 1st Battalion Scots Guards, and served in the South African War, and was discharged in 1911 as time expired; that he joined on 8th August, 1914, was passed A1, and placed in the 2nd Battalion Royal Scots, invalided home from France in March, 1915, and sent to Bristol Hospital, was again invalided home from France on 17th November, 1916, and the hospital ship "Angolia," on which he sailed, was torpedoed, and M'Convey was six hours in the water, and, on recovery, was again sent to France, and on 24th December, 1917, was sent to Birkenhead Hospital, was categoried B3, placed in a labour corps, and demobilised in March, 1919; whether he is aware that this man was awarded a pension on 2nd March, 1919, and is at present under treatment in Bellahouston Hospital; and whether, in view of this record of war service, he will have this case reconsidered?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am having inquiries made into this case, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BENEFIT.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether a discharged soldier, temporarily unfit for work and receiving while in hospital 100 per cent. allowance, is entitled to any benefit under the National Insurance Acts while in hospital?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury, for Sir A. Mond): Sickness or disablement benefit is not payable to an insured person while he is an inmate of a hospital or similar institution, but the whole or part of the benefit is paid to his dependants, if any, or may be applied towards meeting any expenses for which the insured person may be liable otherwise than to the hospital, or, with his consent, may be paid to the hospital if it is not maintained out of public funds. So far as the money is not used in any of these ways, it becomes payable to the insured person on leaving the hospital. In the special case where the insured person is a discharged soldier in receipt of 100 per cent. allowance, the rate of sickness (or disablement) benefit is reduced by 7s. 6d. a week, unless he has been employed for 26 (or 104) weeks since discharge from the Army.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

MILITARY OPERATIONS.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will have inquiries made into the death of James Hayden, of Crannagh, Borris, County Carlow, on Sunday, 6th March; whether this man was fired upon without warning by a corporal in the presence of six people on his way home from Mass; whether the dead man's relatives were refused admission to the military inquiry; whether the military court, which concluded its sitting on 11th March, has given a verdict; and, if so, whether the verdict has been conveyed to the dead man's relatives?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that the court of inquiry in lieu of inquest in the case of James Hayden found that the deceased met his death on 6th March last through non-compliance with a military order in that he did not halt when called upon, and was shot by Crown forces in the execution of their duty. He was returning from Mass at the time. Four civilians, including a brother of the deceased, gave evidence, and the relatives were represented by a solicitor. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. KENYON: 22.
asked the Chief Secretary whether any reprisals, such as the burning of property, have been officially ordered in any place outside the martial-law area?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer is in the negative.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will any person responsible for an unofficial reprisal outside the martial-law area be proceeded against?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Action is always taken against persons responsible for unauthorised reprisals.

Captain BENN: Does not the responsibility for un authorised reprisals rest with the Government, who incite them?

Mr. T. THOMSON: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether the closing of the creameries by military order is approved by the Cabinet?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Commander-in-Chief in Ireland has the complete confidence of the Government in his difficult task, and their support in this and other measures which he has taken for the suppression and discouragement of crime and rebellion.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that when this Order has been applied they have shut down a creamery in one place and within 400 yards they have allowed another creamery to exist, and why have they been giving preferential treatment within the military area?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

Captain BENN: Was a raid on papers made on Plunkett House, the centre of these creameries, and, if so, for what purpose?

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question.

Captain BENN: 33.
asked the Prime Minister what passage in the military code justifies the burning of houses except under circumstances of military necessity and as a reprisal?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No houses have been burned for reasons other than those stated by the hon. Member, and the question therefore does not appear to arise.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Baronet answer the question, which is: Under what passage in the military code, as stated by the Prime Minister, these burnings took place? May I have an answer?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that under The Hague Rule 23, Sub-paragraph (g), general devastation of territory is allowed if military necessities demand it?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I can add nothing to the answer which has been prepared. No houses have been burnt for reasons other than those stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself. The question does not therefore appear to arise.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Baronet kindly answer the question on the Paper which is: Under what article of the military code the burnings took place?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is not what he now states it to be. It is denied that these burnings took place except under certain circumstances.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 58.
asked the Chief Secretary how many houses have been destroyed in the martial-law area by official order since 1st January, 1921?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The number is 185 for the nine counties in the martial law area.

Mr. MOSLEY: 68.
asked the Chief Secretary whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to burn the houses of persons in Ireland without proof of their complicity in outrages?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, Sir. The destruction of houses in the martial-law area has been carried out (1) as a punishment for outrage where the military governor was satisfied that the building was used in rebel operations, or that the owner or occupier of the property had aided or sheltered the rebels. (2) In cases where outrages have been committed against loyal persons, action in the latter cases has been taken against persons of known rebel sympathies. The military governors have invariably taken steps to satisfy themselves personally of the guilt or implication of the owners of the property selected.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was that done in the case of Mrs. Fitzgerald, a widow whose son served through the War in the British Army?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: In these cases where there is evidence against these men of aiding and abetting, is it not possible to take proceedings against them before a military Court?

Mr. MOSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the houses of people are burned because they have rebel sympathies, though there is no accusation of participation in outrage against them?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have answered the question on the Paper, and as regards the supplementary question, I have, at any rate, tried to deal with it in debate.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there no possibility of arranging in future to avoid burning the houses of
soldiers who have served in the British Army?

Mr. MOSLEY: How does the right hon. Gentleman define "implication"? Is a Sinn Feiner in politics implicated, or does it mean people who take an active part in the campaign of murder?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: What is the object of continuing this policy of frightfulness?

Mr. MOSLEY: Why cannot you give a straight answer to anything?

DEPUTY-CHIEF OF POLICE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the Chief Secretary if an officer named Winter is still employed in a position of responsibility in the Irish Administration; and whether this officer's pre-War record was examined before his appointment?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I presume the hon. and gallant Member is referring to Colonel Winter, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., who at present holds the appointment of Deputy-Chief of Police in Ireland. This distinguished and experienced officer was specially lent to the Irish Government by the War Office for this service when the Irish police administration was being re-organised in the summer of last year. As regards the last part of the question, this officer, whose record is one of exceptional distinction, was first appointed in November, 1894, to the Royal Artillery, in which he has since served continuously. He qualified for the Staff College in 1905, and was promoted to the rank of major in 1911 and to that of lieut.-colonel in 1916. He was promoted to the rank of colonel in the Army in April, 1920. As regards his service during the late War, I have already stated, in reply to a previous question, that he was six times mentioned in despatches and was awarded the C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O. and Bar. I should like to add that last week a cold-blooded but, happily, unsuccessful attempt was made to murder Colonel Winter in the streets of Dublin. He was severely wounded in the hand. I am sure that the House will be glad to learn that he is getting better.

MURDERS

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary whether an inquiry has been held into the shooting,
on 15th May, 1921, of the Rev. James O'Callaghan, a Catholic curate, in the house of Mr. de Roiste, M.P., at Cork, and into the shooting at his house in Cork on the same day of Patrick Sheehan; and, if so, what were the findings of the Court?

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 13.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the Rev. Seamus O'Callaghan was murdered on Whit Sunday morning in the house of Mr. de Roiste, M.P. for Cork, during curfew hours; that it is alleged that this was done by forces of the Crown; and what action he has taken?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The finding of the Court of Inquiry in the case of Father O'Callaghan was that deceased was shot at Mr. de Roiste's house on 15th May, and that there was no evidence to show the person or persons responsible for the crime. In the case of Patrick Sheehan the Court found wilful murder against some person or persons unknown. I propose to publish certain documents which will throw some light on the murder.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Father O'Callaghan, before he died, stated that he had been murdered by one of the police, and that he knew who his assailant was?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have seen that statement.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman means by that reply? Does he not believe it?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not believe the fact. Every effort was made by the police immediately after this murder to find the culprits, but all information was refused by the relatives of Mr. de Roiste, who is one of the Sinn Fein Members of Parliament for Cork, and the women who were in the house at the time also refused to give any help to the police. The police did their best to investigate this murder but did not receive any assistance from those occupying Mr. de Roiste's house.

Captain BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the published statement of the three ladies who were in the house at the time, and was it taken into account by the Court of Inquiry?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Court of Inquiry can only take into account evidence given before it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the relatives in this case refused to go to the Court because long experience has shown that these Courts of Inquiry are an utter farce?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there was any inquiry into the seven other murders by Sinn Feiners on that day?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Courts of Inquiry are always held in cases of murder, and I must protest against the allegation of the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy) that these Courts are a farce. They are composed of selected British Regular officers, and that is a sufficient guarantee.

Captain REDMOND: Is it not a fact that these Courts of Inquiry are composed of members of the forces the acts of whose members they are inquiring into.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is not true in this case. They are composed of British officers of the Regular Army, and as far as I know no allegation has been made against officers in reference to this murder.

Captain BENN: Is there the least semblance of judicial appearance about these Courts? Is there cross-examination?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

Mr. HOGGE: 55.
asked the Chief Secretary whether a man named Thomas Murphy, a well-known republican, was shot while asleep in his house at Foxrock, County Dublin, on 30th May; and what is the result of the inquiry in his case?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Court of Inquiry in lieu of inquest in this case found that the deceased man was murdered by some person or persons unknown. Investigation into the matter is still proceeding.

Mr. HOGGE: 63.
asked the Chief Secretary whether a woman, named Mary Fahy, was found dead in her house at Tullamore, King's County, on the night
of the 19th May; whether an arrest has been made; whether an inquiry has been held: and what is the result?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Court of Inquiry in lieu of inquest in this case found that deceased was murdered by some person or persons unknown. The body was found in a ditch some distance from deceased's residence. An arrest has been made, but the police inquiries are not yet complete.

INTERNMENT CAMP, RATH.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 14.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that serious discontent exists among internees in Rath Internment Camp with regard to conditions prevailing there; whether the food ration has been reduced, that the receiving and sending of letters and parcels have been stopped, and that military pickets have been preventing internees from cooking food previously received in parcels from friends; whether Rath Camp is treated differently from others in these matters; and, if so, why that should be so?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Rath Internment Camp is subject to the same rules as other internment camps in Ireland, namely, those laid down in the Royal Warrant for the treatment of prisoners of war. Following an outbreak of concerted insubordination, measures were taken, in accordance with those rules, for the restoration of discipline, and these measures included a curtailment of rations and of privileges.

Major WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is a civilised method of punishing prisoners to put them on famine rations?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that amongst these internees are a great many people who have committed the most foul murders?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Try them!

Sir H. GREENWOOD: There is no famine ration involved. Some of the internees are suspected of murder.

Captain BENN: Why not try them?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: They are not tried for the same reason that you cannot
try the same Sinn Fein men in London when they have committed murders, namely, the difficulty of getting any evidence.

Major WOOD: If these men are hungry and have not enough to eat, and their friends send them parcels, why should the authorities interfere to prevent them from eating and cooking what is sent to them?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is there any object in the right hon. Gentleman's following the German method?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Go to Leipzig!

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The internment camps in Ireland are entirely under military control, and I have every confidence in the administration of the military officers.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (PENSIONS).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 16.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he has further considered the cases of those pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are separated from their wives and who receive nothing whatever from their wives' income, but are prevented by the definition of means in the Pension (Increase) Act, 1920, which includes wife's income, from obtaining any increase of pension; and whether, in view of the smallness of the pensions of these men and the impossibility of they getting employment by reason of their service with the Royal Irish Constabulary, he will bring in legislation to amend the definition of means in the 1920 Act?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on this subject by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 17th March, to which I can add nothing.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman himself further considered the condition of these pensioners, and is it not deplorable?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have personally considered it, and have made recommendations to the Treasury. It means a further expenditure of public money, and I see no desire on the part of the Treasury or of this House to agree to that.

Captain REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the whole question of the pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and will he not exercise his influence, if any, with the Treasury in this respect?

Sir J. BUTCHER: 17.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he has further considered the cases of pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are in receipt of very small pensions, often under £50 a year, and who, owing to the age limit in the Pensions Increase Act, 1920, are unable to obtain any increase of pension, and who, owing to their service in the Royal Irish Constabulary are wholly unable to obtain employment, and are, with their families, in a state bordering on starvation; and whether he will bring in legislation to remove the age limit or to give power to dispense with such limit in proper cases?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret that I am unable to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member's question on this subject on the 3rd March last.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Could the right hon. Gentleman once more try to bring a little influence to bear on the Treasury?

Colonel NEWMAN: How does he think that a man can keep himself and his wife on £50 a year?

DISTURBANCES, TEALEE.

Mr. C. WHITE: 18.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that shooting by the police took place at the town of Tralee on the 8th August, 1920, and again on the 14th August; that on the 31st November the county hall and a number of houses were destroyed by the police; and that on the 16th April a creamery and several houses in the neighbourhood were burnt down, on the 19th April the offices of the newspapers, the "Kerryman" and the "Liberator," were destroyed, and on the 21st April more houses destroyed and a man named Bell killed; and whether any members of the Crown forces have yet been arrested or punished for any of these outrages?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As regards the first of these occurrences, the police, confronted by a dangerous and threatening crowd, fired over their heads in order to disperse them. In the early morning of
14th August some shots were fired in the streets of Tralee, but no evidence could be found as to who fired them. On 1st November a military patrol found the town hall on fire. No definite evidence of the origin of the fire has been obtained. The allegation that St. John's Parish Church was fired on with a machine gun on 23rd March is denied by the Commander-in-Chief, and was officially contradicted in the Press on 30th March. The burning of certain houses in the village of Ballymacelligot on the night of 16th April has been investigated by a court of inquiry. In their finding the court declare that they have taken every step to ascertain the true facts of the case, and are unable to come to any decision other than that the burning was carried out by persons unknown. The Commander-in-Chief states that there is no indication that members of the Crown forces were implicated in the bombing of newspaper offices on 19th April. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division (Mr. Acland) on 26th May.

Mr. WATERSON: In connection with the Ballymacelligot inquiry, was a verbatim report taken, and, if so, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to lay it on the Table of the House for Members to see?

Colonel NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many houses have been burnt in the county of Kerry by Sinn Feiners within the last six months?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must have notice of those questions.

SHOOTING, CARRIGLEA.

Mr. GALBRAITH: 19.
asked the Chief Secretary whether a woman named Mrs. Foley, aged nearly 80 years, was shot at Carriglea, near Dungarvan, by a man in a military or police lorry, while she was gathering sticks by the riverside; whether an inquiry has been held; and what reason is given for the killing of this in-offensive woman?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This place is in the martial law area, and I have, therefore, asked the Commander-in-Chief to furnish me with a report. I shall be glad
if the hon. Member will repeat the question.

DEATH, OVENS.

Mr. GALBRAITH: 20.
asked the Chief Secretary whether an inquiry has been held into the death of a man named Macarthy at Ovens, Ballincollig, on 28th May; and whether any arrests have been made?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: An inquiry has been held in this case, but the certificate of finding of the Court has not yet reached me. Perhaps the hon. Member, therefore, will repeat his question next week.

LOOTING, TRIM.

Major BARNES: 24.
asked the Chief Secretary whether Major Wake, of the auxiliary division of the Royal Irish Constabulary, took evidence at Robinstown, near Trim, between the 24th and 30th March, regarding the looting of that place; and whether his evidence has been used at the court of inquiry and the court martial?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not therefore, arise.

MARTIAL LAW AREAS

Viscount CURZON: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to saving the lives of Crown Forces, loyalists and rebels in Ireland, he will consider the total withdrawal of all Crown Forces and loyalists from such areas as may be deemed requisite, and the institution of a blockade of such areas by land and sea, to be intensified or modified as requisite?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in reply to a similar question by my Noble Friend on the 7th April, I hope that it will not be necessary to have recourse to such measures as he proposes for restoring the authority of the law in Ireland.

Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear the suggestion in mind if the present loss of life on both sides continue?

GENERAL CROZIER.

Mr. GALBRAITH: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has seen the state-
ment of General Crozier that an ex-member of the auxiliary division who threatened to reveal the circumstances in which three men were killed at Killaloe last autumn was approached as to his statement by the Irish Government; and what action he proposes to take to ensure inquiry into this grave charge?

Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I made to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant) on 2nd June on the subject of General Crozier's allegations.

SHOOTING, CROKE PARK.

Major BARNES: 28.
askedthePrime Minister whether, in view of the statement of General Crozier that a Report was received by him from an officer who was present at the shooting at Croke Park and forwarded to the proper authority, he will cause investigations to be made as to why this Report was not put before the Court of Inquiry into this case?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am inquiring into this matter, and shall be glad if the hon. Member will repeat the question one day next week.

FISCAL AUTONOMY.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give at an early date an opportunity to the House of discussing and voting without official tellers upon the question whether fiscal autonomy should be offered to the South and West of Ireland?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very general desire for peace between this country and Ireland, which cannot find expression if the Whips are put on?

DEATH (PATRICK O'BRIEN), COOLCAPPAGH.

Sir W. BARTON: 54.
asked the Chief Secretary whether an inquiry has been held into the death at Coolcappagh, County Limerick, of Patrick O'Brien on the 22nd May; and what is its finding?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This occurred in the martial law area, and I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that the Court of Inquiry found that the death of this man was due to shock,
hæmorrhage, and exposure following injuries received by misadventure, probably caused by falling into a trench.

COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 57.
asked the Chief Secretary the total amount of compensation awarded for injuries to personal property in the Compensation Courts since 1st January, 1920?

Colonel NEWMAN: 69.
asked the Attorney-General for Ireland the total amount, to the nearest convenient date, awarded in compensation by the Irish Courts of Justice to those who have suffered in lives or property at the hands of the Irish Republican party?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The reply is rather lengthy, and with the permission of the House I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain W. BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Cabinet has yet decided the question whether compensation will be paid from Imperial funds where the victims were found to be innocent parties?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That question is still before the Cabinet.

Captain REDMOND: Are the Cabinet ever going to come to a decision on the matter?

The following is the answer:—

If by personal property is meant personal belongings, I regret that I am not in a position to furnish separate statistics, as decrees for destruction of buildings in many cases include also compensation in respect of private property, the two items not being distinguished. The total amount of compensation awarded in respect of the destruction of property in Ireland, including personal belongings, in the last two years reaches a figure of nearly £5,500,000 so far as returns have been received to date. The total amount of compensation awarded in respect of injuries to the person in the same period comes to nearly £1,500,000. The determination of the responsibility for malicious injuries forms no part of the duties assigned to the Courts by which the amount of such damages is assessed. I regret, therefore, that I have no information regarding the proportion of these
damages attributable to the Irish Republican army.

The total amounts awarded by Decree notified to the Chief Secretary's Office since 1st June, 1919, are as follow:



£


Injury to person:



Northern Ireland
62,420


Southern Ireland
1,286,153


Total
1,348,573


Injury to property:



Northern Ireland
272,723


Southern Ireland
5,080,654


Total
5,353,377

These amounts are chargeable under the Malicious Injuries Act to the local rating authorities in whose area any particular act of destruction takes place. In some cases the compensation awarded has already been paid by those authorities. In the case of injuries to police, military and other servants of the Crown serving in Ireland a proportion of the awards are advanced from the local taxation account from grants which would normally be payable to the local authorities but which are now intercepted because they refuse to recognize the authority of the Crown.

TRADE DISPUTE, DUBLIN.

Mr. MYERS: 65.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that for some weeks there has been a trade dispute at the works of Messrs. Barrett and Company, Westland Row, Dublin; that a strike picket has been on duty outside the premises since the beginning of the dispute, and that no question has arisen as to the conduct of this picket; that on 30th May an armed military car drove up, and the officer in charge ordered the picket away, stating that they could not be allowed to loiter there; that the officer was informed that a trade dispute was in progress and that they were the strike picket; that the officer replied with an expletive against the strike and again ordered the picket off; and whether he will have inquiries made into this matter and give instructions against any further interference with the legitimate right of dispute?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am inquiring into this matter, and shall be glad if the hon. Member will one day next week
repeat the question, of which I only received notice yesterday. I must say at once that the military and police authorities must take every step necessary to prevent disorder.

CIVIL SERVICE (ESTABLISHED LIST).

Viscount CURZON: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to add to the established list of the Civil Service?

The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): It is not proposed to make any appointments to the established list except in cases where the work is clearly of a permanent character.

TONNAGE (SALE).

Major BARNES: 34.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the resolution moved by the ex-president of the Chamber of Shipping, and passed by the North of England Steamship Owners' Association, on Monday the 30th ultimo, demanding a free and unrestricted world's market for the sale of tonnage; and whether this war-time restriction will now be removed?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): I have been asked to reply. I have seen the resolution referred to in the question, and will do what I can to remove the remaining restrictions on the transfer of ships as soon as it is possible to do so.

Major BARNES: In view of the fact that the shipbuiding trade has depended in the past very largely on the sale of British shipping abroad, can the right hon. Gentleman say in what period of time he hopes to be able to get rid of these restrictions?

Sir G. RENWICK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at present the market is flooded with ships, principally ex-German ships, which the British market cannot absorb, and it is having a serious effect on the shipbuilding trade, and there is no earthly hope of a recovery while the ships are in the market?

Mr. BALDWIN: These considerations are naturally present to my mind. I cannot give a more definite reply at this moment. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether the question of an Anglo-French alliance, even without America, will shortly be or has been reopened; and will he assure the House that His Majesty's Government will not commit Great Britain to any such policy without giving this House an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the subject?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No such discussion has taken place. If the contingency contemplated were to arise, Parliament would certainly be consulted.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has received any report from the Solicitor-General regarding the proceedings at the trial of the German war criminals at Leipzig; and whether, in view of the inadequacy of the sentences so far passed, immediate steps will be taken to remove the remainder of the trials to London?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): I have been asked to reply to this question. I have made a preliminary report as to the proceedings at which I was present at Leipzig. Until the present series of trials before the Supreme Court at Leipzig of the cases remitted to that Court by the Allies has been concluded, the decision of the Allies as to the procedure in other cases cannot be anticipated.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask whether of the seven alleged war criminals remitted to Leipzig three escaped, is there only one now to be decided and was the hon. and learned Gentleman, as representing the British Government, satisfied with the trials so far?

Sir E. POLLOCK: The Allies agreed to send a preliminary list which totalled 45, of which six cases were British. The British cases were ready in advance of the others and have been tried. The two cases which are now being tried are Belgian cases, and, so far as I know, the French intend to bring on some of their cases, because before our Mission left Leipzig some representatives of the French had gone in order to watch the
proceedings with a view to their cases being tried. After the series of cases, including French and Belgian and other cases, have been tried, then of course the matter will have to be reconsidered by the Allies.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman answer that part of the question which asks, "as representing His Majesty's Government is he satified so far with the result of these trials?"

Sir E. POLLOCK: I think it would be improper to make a statement at the present moment, but perhaps the hon. Member may care to know that the sentence which was delivered in my presence excited great dejection amongst the military party of Germany, and the officers there certainly did not think it was a small sentence to have one of their number sent to an ordinary prison in order to carry out the sentence of 10 months among thieves and other felons.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Am I right in supposing that in one of the very worst crimes which has been committed against British subjects, namely, the sinking of another hospital ship, the German criminal has been allowed to escape out of Germany, and will the Government make representations to get him back?

Sir E. POLLOCK: Every step has been taken, as I will explain when I have a further opportunity to deal with the matter, to secure the arrest of these persons, but the man to whom I think the hon. Baronet refers disappeared immediately upon the original list being published including his name. Every step has been taken to secure him. His property has been sequestrated and there is a warrant out for his arrest, which could be immediately put in force if it was possible to execute it.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it true that the French have postponed the trial of their cases till the end of July, as announced in the papers?

Sir E. POLLOCK: I can give no information at all about that. It may be that the Court is unable to sit after a certain time, but I really have no information of any kind about the matter.

Mr. BARNES: In view of the decision of the Court in the case of Neumann, the last man tried, that he was only
carrying out the orders of his superior, will the Government retain entire discretion to bring the superiors to trial?

Mr. SPEAKER: I really think these important questions should be placed upon the Paper.

Captain W. BENN: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Allied Governments have any power under the Treaty of Versailles to take further action if the sentences imposed by the Leipzig Court are derisory?

Sir E. POLLOCK: I have been asked to reply to this question. Yes, all rights of the Allies made under the Treaty of Versailles have been expressly reserved.

Captain BENN: May we understand if these sentences prove to be derisory the Government will take action under the powers under the Treaty?

Sir E. POLLOCK: The whole matter will be reconsidered, as I have said, when the first series of trials has been concluded.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does that mean before the next election?

Sir J. BUTCHER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister what law the Leipzig Court, which is trying war criminals, professes to administer, whether German military law, or international law, or otherwise; whether there is any written or other agreement between this country and the German Government on this subject; and, in view of the fact that the German U-boat commander who sank a hospital ship was acquitted last week on the ground that he acted under superior orders, what steps will be taken to bring those who gave these orders to justice?

Sir E. POLLOCK: I have been asked to reply to this question. I understand that the law administered is German law as laid down in the civil penal code and military penal code. There is no agreement between this country and the German Government on this subject. The question what steps shall be taken will be considered by the Allies when the present series of trials before the Supreme Court at Leipzig has been concluded.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. and learned Member say whether the German penal code as administered in
the Leipzig Court is in accordance with the principles of international law?

Sir E. POLLOCK: That is a difficult question, which I am afraid I cannot answer offhand. From my experience at Leipzig I know that the military code was referred to by the President of the Court as being subject to their penal code. He said the military code could not abrogate the ordinary penal code.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Was there any indication of the principles of international law on these subjects being applied in the Leipzig Court?

Sir E. POLLOCK: The hon. and learned Member will remember that this was the Supreme Court of Germany sitting, not to administer international law, but to administer its own law.

UPPEE SILESIA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether any arrangements have yet been made for a conference to decide the fate of Upper Silesia; and whether British troops there are being employed in driving back German insurgents while French troops are carrying on their previous role in the area under the control of Polish insurgents?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government are ready for a conference at an early date, but the arrangements have not yet been made. The British troops in Silesia are co-operating with other Allied troops to restore and maintain order, but there has been no conflict between the British troops and the German Self-Protection Organisations. The measures necessary for the suppression of the Polish insurrection by the Allied troops, acting in co-operation, are now being considered.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What is it that is obstructing or delaying the meeting of the conference to decide the settlement of Upper Silesia?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is because other parties to the conference are not ready.

ALLOTMENTS

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether notification has been issued by the Board of Agriculture or any other Government Department to
the effect that, far from increasing the number of allotments, it is now desirable that allotments taken up under the Defence of the Realm Act should cease and the land be restored to the owners?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I have been asked to answer this question. The Ministry has notified the various local authorities that the Minister's possession of land acquired under the Defence of the Realm Regulations for allotments should cease not later than 25th March, 1923, but the authorities have been instructed to take immediate steps to negotiate for the acquisition, under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, of such land in order that the allotments may be put on a more permanent basis. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the circular letter which explains the matter in greater detail than can be dealt with by question and answer.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that, at a time when money is so difficult to come by, the allotment industry is only to go on if the land be definitely purchased, while, under the Defence of the Realm Act, the people could have the use of allotments until the land was required for building purposes?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, Sir. In the first place, the liability of the State for land under the Defence of the Realm Act is very heavy; and, in the second place, if my hon. Friend will read the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, he would find that local authorities possess the most ample powers of hiring compulsorily.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have asked over and over again what steps are being taken to meet the present unemployment by increasing allotments and small holdings?

MIDDLE EAST.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 42.
asked the Prime Minister upon what Vote it is proposed to take the Debate on the Middle Eastern policy of the Government; and whether it can be arranged so as to enable reference to be made to the Egyptian, Arabian, Armenian, and Persian aspects of this policy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The discussion will be upon the Vote presented to Parliament by the Colonial Office for moneys in
respect of the administration of Palestine and Mesopotamia and for certain political expenditure in Arabia. In consequence the discussion will, I presume, be confined to those countries, although, of course, the repercussion on their affairs of events in neighbouring countries is not entirely excluded. It would be impossible, however, to make this Vote the occasion for a discussion of affairs in Egypt, Armenia and Persia, which countries are wholly outside the scope of the Colonial Office.

Lord R. CECIL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think there will be certain difficulties in discussing adequately any of these questions without referring to other countries?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Questions are apt to interlock and overlap, and we have to take the discussion as we can in accordance with the rules of the House, and I think, with the kindness and consideration of the Chair, we generally manage to do so.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a discussion of the position in Anatolia and Syria may fairly be taken on this Vote?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think I can add anything to what I have said. It is not for me to define the rules of order. I do not think I ought to be asked to add anything to the general indication I have given. That must be left to the Chairman of Committees.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I presume there is no desire to prevent discussion of recent events in Palestine?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot see why my hon. and gallant Friend should think it necessary to ask that question. The Vote is put down in order that that portion of the Middle East for which the Colonial Secretary is now the responsible Minister should be discussed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On what date?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will say later.

FOREIGN POLICY (COMMERCIAL INTERESTS).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can assure the House that in all diplomatic negotiations
tending to define the international policy of this country there is the closest inter-working and understanding between, on the one hand, the Foreign Office and, on the other, the Board of Trade, so that no serious diplomatic step can be taken without prior consideration of its effect on our commercial well-being; and whether this applies in particular to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend may rest assured that in all matters affecting them both there is close consultation between the two Departments referred to. In a question of such importance as that of which my hon. Friend makes special mention there need be no fear that the views of any Department will be ignored or overlooked.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (EXPENSES).

Sir T. POLSON: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether the members of His Majesty's Government are liable to be surcharged with any loss to the State arising out of the cost of printing and other charges in connection with the recent issue of railway vouchers to Members of this House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative.

Sir T. POLSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities are liable to be surcharged for expenditure improperly incurred, and that this has a salutary effect in regard to the spending of public money?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would not undertake to say what would happen if Parliament refused to cover the expenses which have been incurred already, but as Parliament has not yet refused to do that, I must decline to answer the question.

CAIRO-CAPETOWN AIR ROUTE.

Mr. MOSLEY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statements contained in paragraph 10 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upon the Appropriation Account of the receipt and expenditure for air services, dated 18th March, 1920, to the effect that a sum of about £76,000 had been expended in connection with the Cairo-Capetown air route, whereas the sum sanctioned by the
Treasury was £3,000; whether any explanation of the occurrence has yet been furnished by the Air Ministry; and what action is contemplated for the re-establishment of Treasury control over the spending departments?

Sir R. HORNE: The expenditure in question took place in the Financial years 1919–20 and 1920–21. The matter has been fully discussed before the Public Accounts Committee, and their Report is awaited.

LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS (SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES).

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 51.
asked the Lord Privy Seal the amount of salaries

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS in the Legislature in the Dominions of Canada and New Zealand, the Commonwealth of Australia and the Union of South Africa.


—
Upper House.
Lower House.
Remarks.
Authority.


Canada:
$4,000 per session (extending beyond 50 days).
$4,000 per session (extending beyond 50 days).
With travelling expenses. Deductions made for nonattendance.
Revised Statutes 1906, Chap. 10, as amended by Chap. 69, 1920


Dominion of.


New Zealand:
£350 per annum.
£500 per annum.
With travelling expenses. Deductions made for nonattendance.
Chap. 31, 1920 Part III.


Dominion of.


Australia:
£1,000 per annum.
£1,000 per annum
With travelling expenses.
Act 12 of 1920.


Commonwealth of.


South Africa:
£400 per annum.
£400 per annum.
With free railway passes. Deductions made for nonattendance.
South Africa Act, 1909; also Union Act 21 of 1916.


Union of.



A temporary additional allowance of £200 per annum has been granted (to cover increased cost of living) which is being reduced to £100 for the present year.

INCOME TAX (WIDOWS' PENSIONS).

Mr. THOMSON: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to amend Section 16, Subsection (2) (a) and (d) of the Finance Act of 1919 so as to extend the relief from Income Tax granted to disabled soldiers drawing wounds, disability, or disablement pensions after their death to their widows?

Sir R. HORNE: I cannot see my way to adopt the hon. Member's proposal. I would remind him that the widows' pensions to which he refers are subject to the allowance in respect of earned income, under Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1920, and, of course, equally with other assess-

now paid to members of legislative chambers corresponding to the House of Commons in France, Italy, the United States, and in the British Dominions; and what travelling facilities they are also entitled to?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the position in France, Italy and the United States, the latest information at my disposal is contained in a White Paper published in 1911 (Cmd. 5714). I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement containing the latest information in regard to the Dominions.

The following is the statement promised:

able income, to the personal allowance and other Income Tax reliefs.

Mr. THOMSON: If it be equitable that a pensioner should be exempt from Income Tax why should not his widow who receives the same pension be exempt? Is not the equity the same?

Sir R. HORNE: No. I think that the cases are entirely different, and this was recognised by Parliament when the matter was originally dealt with.

BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION, LIMITED.

Sir W. BARTON: 74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total
amount held in shares by the Government in the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited; what the Treasury value these shares at to-day; and whether the directors appointed by the Government to the board of this company are satisfied with the technical management and organisation, and with the general condition and progress of the corporation?

Sir R. HORNE: As stated in the Return of Government Investments presented in 1920 (No. 180), the Government holding in the British Dyestuffs Corporation consists of 850,000 £1 preferred ordinary shares and 850,000 preferred shares, both fully paid. At current market quotations, the value of these shares would amount to about £580,000, but in view of the existing depression in the textile industries and the consequent lack of demand for the Corporation's products, I do not think that current quotations can be regarded as affording any adequate indication of the ultimate value of the investment. As regards the last part of the question, I am informed that recent changes indicate that, whilst substantial progress had been made in a task of great difficulty, the board of the company were not entirely satisfied with the position. The Government directors were in full accord with their colleagues as to the necessity of taking every possible measure to secure greater efficiency in the conduct of the undertaking, and steps have been adopted to that end.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is the Government in control of this concern? Does it hold a controlling number of shares?

Sir R. HORNE: No, it does not.

Mr. HOGGE: Is it a fact that the shares have depreciated?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not perfectly acquainted with the market quotations.

COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR-GENERAL.

Sir W. BARTON: 75.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the record and qualifications of the Comptroller-General appointed to succeed Sir Henry Gibson; by whom the appointment was made; the emoluments and conditions of service; and what steps were taken to get the best man that could be got?

Sir R. HORNE: Sir Malcolm Ramsay has had a financial experience in the Treasury extending over 24 years, and for eight years he was in charge of the Treasury Division directly concerned with problems of Parliamentary and public accounting and was Accounting Officer for all Votes and funds administered by the Treasury. His career in the Treasury has been a distinguished one, in the course of which he has received special promotion, eventually becoming Controller of the Establishments Department. The appointment to the post of Comptroller and Auditor-General is made by Letters Patent under the Great Seal, and it is the constitutional duty of the Prime Minister to advise the King in regard to it. In accordance with the recommendations (published in Command Paper 1188) of the Committee over which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley presided, the post carries a salary of £3,000 a year, and, in addition, bonus, at present rates, of £500. On appointment the Comptroller and Auditor-General is invariably asked to signify his willingness to retire, if called upon to do so, on attaining the age of 65 years. Sir Malcolm Ramsay was appointed because he is believed to be the person best qualified for the post.

Sir W. BARTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this officer is in a special sense a servant of this House and maintains contact with it through the Public Accounts Committee; that the functions of the Committee are to see that the moneys voted by Parliament are applied to the purposes for which they are voted, and that proper value is got; and in these circumstances is it not clear that the House should have some say in the appointment?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

Captain TERRELL: Why is it necessary to give the Comptroller-General £500 extra as war bonus two years after the War?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument. The question on the Paper is concerned only with the facts.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (CLUBS).

Lieut.-Colonel PICKERING: 76.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will
take steps to see that clubs are not subjected to Entertainments Duty for singing and playing by members where no admission fees are charged?

Sir R. HORNE: Under Section 1 (4) of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, Entertainments Duty is chargeable on such part of the subscription to any club as appears to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to represent the right of admission to entertainments in respect of which Entertainments Duty is payable. I am unable to say whether liability to duty arises in a particular case without a full knowledge of the facts.

Lieut.-Colonel PICKERING: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give an answer to my previous question from the information which I have supplied to him?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not here arise.

PERSIA (BRITISH CONCESSIONS).

Sir J. D. REES: 77.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Shah's Government has cancelled the concessions granted by its predecessors to Messrs. Lynch and to other British firms operating in Persia?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The late Persian Government informed His Majesty's Minister at Teheran on 3rd May that the Persian Transport Company's road concession had been cancelled, owing to the company's failure to comply with its terms and to the expiration of the agreement. The company, however, deny these allegations and the matter is still under discussion. No other British concessions have been cancelled by the Persian Government.

ALBANIA (DEPORTATIONS).

Mr. A. HERBERT: 78.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information with regard to the Albanian families living within the frontiers of 1913 who have been forcibly deported to Nish by the Serbians?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no precise information beyond that given in my reply to my hon. Friend on 5th May.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

MARTIAL LAW.

Mr. SWAN: 80.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Adly Pasha, on becoming Premier of Egypt, promised the abolition of martial law; whether martial law in Egypt is imposed by the British authorities; and whether Adly Pasha had permission from the British authorities to make this promise?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: On taking office, the Egyptian Government expressed the conviction that existing circumstances were of a nature to justify a return to normal conditions, and that it would soon be possible to withdraw martial law. Unfortunately these hopes have not materialised, and recent events plainly indicate that the time for the withdrawal of martial law has not yet arrived. The answer to the second part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. No promise was made by Adly Pasha. So that the last part of the question does not arise.

Mr. SWAN: Is not the fact that martial law has not been rescinded throughout the country likely to cause widespread disaffection?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Recent events have shown the necessity for the continuance of martial law.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Had there not been martial law and British troops there, would not a larger proportion of the Greek and Italian population of Alexandria have been massacred?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is certainly my opinion.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.

Mr. SWAN: 81.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the Egyptian people have now made clear by all possible means that the present Ministry does not possess its confidence, that the nomination of delegates who do not represent the national views is the special reason of this, that it demands the election of a national assembly to give official expression to the national will, and that Zaghloul Pasha supports this demand, the British Government will advise the Egyptian Government to accede to this demand?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland on the 9th ultimo, to which I have nothing to add.

CHINA (LANCASHIRE COTTON GOODS).

Sir W. de FRECE: 88.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the nature of his latest advices with regard to the trade in China in Lancashire cotton goods; and whether there is any noticeable return of commercial stability?

Mr. BALDWIN: There is some evidence of a revival of demand for Lancashire cotton goods in China, and of an increasing ability of Chinese firms to take delivery of goods ordered by them. There is reason to believe that this improvement should continue, but it is not possible as yet to make any definite statement on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

LONDON.

Colonel NEWMAN: 90.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has been able to acquaint himself with what took place at a meeting of the education committee of the London County Council on the 1st instant; whether the policy of economy desired by the ratepayers and enjoined on his Board last year by the Government was derided by co-opted members of the committee, and he himself described as a "lost leader"; will he say what means are available to enforce the policy of economy on this committee; and does he intend to make use of the same in the interests of both taxpayers and ratepayers of the County of London?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): I have no information on the matter beyond what has appeared in the public Press. I do not think it is for me to intervene between the London County Council and their education committee, or to criticise the utterances of individual members of the committee.

Colonel NEWMAN: How is it that these co-opted gentlemen on the committee
talk of the right hon. Gentleman as their "lost leader"?

PROVIDED SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).

Sir R. NEWMAN: 91.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the number of provided schools in England and Wales where no religious teaching is given?

Mr. FISHER: The Board have no information on this subject. I may refer the hon. Member to Section 7 (3) of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, which declares that it shall be no part of the duties of His Majesty's Inspectors to inquire into any instruction in religious subjects given in public elementary schools. The Board believe, however, that there are very few public elementary schools in which religious instruction forms no part of the curriculum.

EX-SERVICE MEN (EDUCATIONAL GRANT).

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 92.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether any consideration can be made of the case of Captain T. J. Ford, late 2nd Welsh Regiment, who, having applied for a University Education Grant on, 25th June, 1919, was not demobilised till the following December, and came up to Oxford in January, 1921, in the belief that his application would stand, despite of the delay caused by his late demobilisation?

Mr. FISHER: It is one of the published conditions of assistance under the Government scheme for the higher education of ex-service students in the case of applicants demobilised on and after 1st October, 1919, that

(a) applications must be lodged within three months of demobilisation and not later than 30th June, 1920; and also that
(b) the course of higher education must be commenced not later than the beginning of the autumn term, 1920.

Captain T. J. Ford was demobilised in December, 1919. The first intimation received by the Board of his intention to apply for assistance under the scheme was received in December, 1920, and his proposed course at Oxford was stated to com-
mence in January, 1921. Neither of the two conditions referred to above was satisfied, and the Board were unable to entertain his application.

Sir J. D. REES: Did not the right hon. Gentleman promise that no more of these applications to educate officers at the universities at the taxpayers' expense would be entertained?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a general question, and does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. F. HALL: 94.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill dealing with workmen's compensation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I regret I can add nothing to the replies to the previous questions asked on this subject by the hon. Member on the 17th February and the 5th May last.

AUSTRALIAN TROOPS (MAINTENANCE ORDERS).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 98.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Australian Government has yet passed reciprocal legislation on the subject of the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act; and whether, having regard to the hardship caused to wives who have been deserted in the United Kingdom by Australian soldiers, he will take advantage of the forthcoming meeting with Colonial premiers to bring the urgency of such legislation to the notice of the Governments concerned?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. E. Wood): The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is, so far as I know, in the negative. The suggestion made in the second part will be considered.

HOUSING (CONSTRUCTION).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 100.
asked the Minister of Health the names of the 12 local authorities which have completed
the greatest total number of houses under the 1919 Act, and the 12 local authorities which have completed the greatest number as compared with their population?

Mr. PARKER (for Sir Alfred Mond): The 12 local authorities which had on the 1st May, the latest date for which complete returns are available, completed the greatest number of houses under the Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act, 1919, are as follows: The Corporations of Birmingham, Liverpool, Sheffield, Bristol, Croydon, Derby, Manchester, Leeds, Nottingham, Middlesbrough, the London County Council, and the Stretford Urban District Council
The 12 local authorities which have completed the greatest number of houses in proportion to their population are: The Urban District Councils of Hayes, Letchworth, Thurnscoe, Ruislip-North-wood, Penistone, Bolton - on - Dearne, Holywell, Adwick-le-Street, the Buckingham Town Council and the Rural District Councils of Welwyn, Whitchurch (Salop), and Northampton.

LOCAL RATES (INCREASE PREVENTION)BILL.

Mr. HURD: 102.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the withdrawal of the Local Rates (Increase Prevention) Bill, he will invite the associations representing the different classes of local authorities, such as the County Council Association, the Municipal Corporations Association, the Urban and Rural District Council Associations, the Association of Poor Law Unions, and the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, to enter into conference in order to devise means of reducing local rates by abolishing the overlapping and duplication of services and by other means?

Mr. PARKER: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot see his way to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend, which he does not think would be likely to lead to any useful result.

Mr. HURD: Have any steps been taken to see whether a scheme can be devised for bringing down local rates?

Mr. PARKER: Obviously I cannot reply to that question. The hon. Member had better ask the Minister when my right hon. Friend is in his place.

LONDON HOSPITAL.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 103.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the closing of certain wards and curtailment of the out-patient department of the London Hospital; and whether he proposes to take any steps to provide adequate facilities for medical treatment for the people of East London?

Mr. PARKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part my right hon. Friend can make no statement until the Government have had an opportunity of considering the Report of Lord Cave's Committee, which is now before them, but he would point out that there is accommodation for emergency cases available in the Whitechapel and other infirmaries in East London.

BRITISH FLEET, MEDITERRANEAN.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether British warships, led by the "Iron Duke," the flagship of Admiral Sir John de Robeck, Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Fleet, are arriving at Constantinople next week; and whether the Government intend to actively support King Constantine of Greece in a war against the Turkish Nationalists, although the French Government have declared they will help neither in men nor in money?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean Station, in "Iron Duke," with "Ajax," "Pegasus," "Surprise," "Stuart," and some destroyers, is due at Constantinople on 15th June for about a month's stay. These movements are merely in accordance with the programme of a cruise which included ports on Egyptian and Palestine coasts, Cyprus, and Smyrna. Owing to a visit being paid to Rhodes and Samos, which ports were not included in the original programme, it is possible that the date of arrival at Constantinople may need amendment. The programme was arranged towards the end of April last. As regards the last part of the question the policy of His Majesty's Government is under consideration.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Government make it clear that this naval demonstration is in no way giving moral support to the Greeks in their war against Turkey?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not a naval demonstration.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: Will the House have an opportunity of debating the matter in the near future?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say that.

AGRICULTURE ACT, 1920.

Mr. TURTON: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Agricultural Advisory Committee was asked to give an opinion as to the effect on the production of cereals of the repeal of Part I of the Agriculture Act, and whether he would defer taking any action until such time as the Committee could advise as to the probable decrease in the production of wheat and oats by such repeal?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, Sir; the Agricultural Advisory Committee was not consulted. The question involved very important matters of public policy, and could only be decided by the Cabinet as a whole.

Mr. LAMBERT: As the matter is of extraordinary importance to agriculture, can my right hon. Friend say when the proposals of the Government will be before the House?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The proposals of the Government are before the House.

Mr. LAMBERT: I mean the Bill.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I hope the Bill may be introduced at a very early date, but I cannot possibly fix a date at the present moment

Mr. LAMBERT: Next week?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think so.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Will the Leader of the House state what business it is proposed to take to-morrow, and what business will be taken next week?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: To-morrow is private Members' day, and the Government do not fix the business.
On Monday next, we shall take the Motion for the allocation of time for the remaining stages of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill.
Tuesday has already been allotted to the Colonial Office Vote.
On Wednesday we propose to take the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill.
On Thursday we shall take the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
Friday I hope to devote to a debate on the agenda of the Imperial Conference, for which time has been asked.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposal to put the Safeguarding of Industries Bill in Committee under the guillotine will excite the deepest resentment of the Opposition?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will show all the indignation of which he is capable, but I have fortified myself with precedents from the time when the party he represents was in power, and those, I think, will satisfy the House that the course we are taking is the right course.

Captain W. BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is proposed to set up the Estimates Committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope at once. I believe that it has been delayed only because of the widespread desire to serve on the Committee, and the consequent difficulty of adjusting its exact composition.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the House have an opportunity, on the Motion to set up the Estimates Committee, of discussing whether or not the purview of the Committee is sufficiently wide to check expenditure?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot under take, for reasons which I think will become apparent when I make my statement on the Motion set down for Monday, to find time for the discussion of the powers of this Committee. If it be not accepted by the House, it will be in the power of anybody to block it. At this stage I cannot find time for a discussion on the Committee.

Captain BENN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman under a pledge to the House to set up such a Committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am under a pledge to propose to the House to carry out the recommendations of the gentlemen whom I invited to confer with me on the subject. I will submit that Motion to the House, but should the House not accept it, I cannot undertake to find time.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable difference of opinion as to whether the form of the Motion is in accordance with the agreement arrived at, and does he not think, in view of its immediate importance, that he should put down an Order which might be briefly debated?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of the first allegation made by the hon. Member, and I have every reason to believe he is misinformed. I do not think any Member of the Committee which was good enough to assist me would suggest that the Motion does not carry out the decision of the Committee, subject always to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) dissented from the majority of his colleagues on one important matter.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: In view of the importance of the discussion which is set down for Friday, and the importance of the subjects which are to come before the Imperial Conference, will the right hon. Gentleman not undertake to allow a full day's discussion of this matter instead of a Friday afternoon?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have great difficulty, as naturally anybody in my position must have, in reconciling the wishes of the House for discussions on many subjects with the conduct of the necessary business. I hope to be able to devote Friday to this subject, and believe, if able to do so, that I shall satisfy the prime movers in this matter, and those who have shown the most interest in it.

Earl WINTERTON: As I moved in the matter of asking for a day for the discussion of the Imperial Conference agenda, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the day granted in reply to that request entirely satisfies those who moved in the matter, and that they are most grateful to him?

HOUSE OF COMMONS (PRIVATE MEETINGS).

Sir H. CRAIK: I wish to put a question to you, Mr. Speaker, which is of some importance in regard to the usages of this House. It is whether your attention has been called to the fact that a large gathering, composed to a considerable extent of persons not Members of this House, took place on the evening of 8th June in one of the Committee Rooms of the House in order to listen to a debate between a Member of the other House and a speaker who belongs to neither of the Houses of Parliament; whether you think rooms provided for the business purposes of this House should be used for such public meetings; and whether you do not consider that public meetings of this kind, consisting largely of persons not amenable to the Rules of this House, are liable to lead to serious abuses?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have made inquiries, and find that the usual practice of the House was followed. The room was applied for by an hon. Member, and where such application is made—subject, of course, to the Parliamentary business of the House—the application is granted for a conference or for a private meeting if the subject be a political one. With regard to persons not Members of this or the other House being admitted to this meeting, again the usual course was followed. An application was made by the hon. Member who had applied for the room, giving a list of persons, and to those persons passes were issued in the usual form. I do not see any ground for interfering with a practice which is one of long standing in the House.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not a serious evil if two persons, not Members of this House, are allowed to carry on an oratorical duel in the presence of members of the public not subject to the Rules of this House, and may it not lead to disorder and scenes which would be a scandal to the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member who applies for a room takes upon himself the responsibility during the period it is at his disposal. I have not heard of anything happening which would call for any intervention. If anything should happen, then it will be time enough to act.

Mr. KENNEDY: May I ask if one of the participants in the debate of last
night did not take part in a similar meeting a few weeks ago, and if any objection was taken by hon. Members opposite to the part he took on that occasion?

Mr. SPEAKER: I heard of no objection to the antecedent meeting.

Mr. HOGGE: In view of the fact that a Count was called in this House, would it not be advisable to discourage these meetings upstairs?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are you aware, while this meeting was going on, the attraction was so great that this House was practically denuded?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry I cannot take such a view of the hon. and gallant Member's eloquence.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Are you aware that quite recently the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) invited Carpentier to fight in one of the Committee rooms?

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

JAMES MALCOLM MONTEITH ERSKINB, Esquire, for Borough of Westminster (St. George's Division).

BILL PRESENTED.

LAND NATIONALISATION BILL,

"to provide for the nationalisation of land in Great Britain and the abolition of private property therein," presented by Mr. WALTER SMITH; supported by Mr. Cape, Mr. William Graham, Mr. Thomas Griffiths, Mr. Hodge, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Myers, Mr. Spoor, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Mr. Wignall, and Mr. Tyson Wilson; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 23rd June, and to be printed.[Bill 135.]

BILL REPORTED.

Lancashire County Council (Drainage) Bill.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, without Amendment.
Health Resorts and Watering Places Bill,
Cambridge University and Town Waterworks Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Dover. [Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Dover Extension) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Dover Extension) Bill [Lords],

Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

GAS AND WATER BILLS, JOINT COMMITTEE.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Gas and Water Bills: Sir Alfred Yeo; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Casey.

Report to lie upon the Table.

LAW OF PROPERTY (ASSIMILATION) BILL [Lords],

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.[Bill 134.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[THIRTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1921–1922. [Progress.]

POST OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £40,165,287, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."—[Note.—£27,000,000 has been voted on account.]

4.0 P.M.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): When I was contesting my election, as the result of my appointment as Postmaster-General, I said that I did not anticipate, if elected, that in that position I should receive many illuminated addresses. So far I have proved to be a correct prophet. If any have been sent, they have failed to reach me. They may be on their way. I do not suppose that any Postmaster-General has ever had a more difficult, and certainly none could have had a more uncongenial, task than that which falls to my lot this afternoon, because, obviously, it must be in the interests of the Post Office that everything shall be done which can assist and promote the freest possible communication between all classes of the community if we are to aid the development of business. It can be only through the greatest stress of necessity that any Postmaster-General can agree to proposals for raising charges. I realise that, unless the Committee can be satisfied that every other possible alternative has been carefully examined, and that it can be shown that those alternatives would fail to provide the revenue that is needed, I shall fail in my task. I believe that the choice before the Committee is between the meeting of the deficit by a subsidy from the Exchequer or by the method that I have proposed. I realise that, unless I can satisfy the Committee that those are
the alternatives, the Committee will feel that I have failed as Postmaster-General in my main duty. I believe that those are the alternatives, and, in order to show that, I desire to put before the Committee in the fullest and frankest way all the facts which have driven me, and which have driven the Government, to that conclusion, and which are necessary to enable the Committee to come to a decision on the question whether the alternative is between a subsidy from the State on the one hand, and the increased charges on the other.
It will be necessary for me to deal with a considerable number of figures, and I want at the outset to explain that the figures which I shall use are those which are set out in the commercial accounts submitted to the House, and that they differ in several respects from the Exchequer figures which were used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement of last year. The differences between the two are principally these: The commercial accounts include the appropriate charges for interest and depreciation of plant and the value of the services rendered to the Post Office by other Government Departments. On the other side, credit is taken in those accounts for the value of all the services rendered by the Post Office to other Government Departments. That point is one of great importance, because I have seen it stated that the ordinary custom of the Post Office is being penalised owing to the great and expensive services which the Post Office has to render to other Government Departments. There appears in our Post Office accounts £5,800,000 for services rendered to other Government Departments. The revenue for 1920–21 proved disappointing. In round figures the income was £58,200,000 and the expenditure £65,500,000. There was a deficit on last year's working of the Post Office of £7,300,000. It was not expected that the accounts for last year would balance. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House (Mr. Chamberlain), as Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in April last year that the increased charges which he then indicated would not be imposed until after the Madrid International Convention, and that therefore the benefit of those increased charges would not be felt in last year's accounts. That to some extent accounts for the deficit of £7,300,000, but, apart from that fact, the
revenue also suffered from the postponement of the increased telephone charges to 1st April of this year. No revenue was derived last year from the increased telephone charges.
Another factor was the depression in trade. No revenue is more sensitive to depression in trade than the Post Office revenue. When the Estimates were first made up for last year, trade was booming, and there was reason to suppose that the normal increase in revenue would be realised. During the last months of the year we experienced a great industrial slump, and that immediately expressed itself in a falling-off in Post Office revenue. This experience was not peculiar to this country. The Post Office of the United States of America showed a deficit of $11,500,000 in 1920. The Post Office of France, in 1919, the last year for which we have the figures, showed a deficit of 582,000,000 francs. The Post Office of Germany, in 1920, showed a deficit of 3,000,000,000 marks, and the Italian Post Office, for the year 1920–21, is expected to show a deficit of 350,000,000 lire. It has therefore been a world-wide experience, and not peculiar to this country.
I now come to the Estimates for the current year. We estimate for an expenditure of £70,000,000 and for a revenue on present charges of £66,500,000, leaving a deficit of £3,500,000. I have seen it stated that this is the result of gross carelessness or error on the part of the Post Office officials, that there has been bad estimating, and that they have proved to be £3,500,000 out in their Estimate. That is not the fact. The estimated expenditure was £70,000,000, and I have no reason to believe that it will not prove to be accurate. Last year there was a deficit of over £7,000,000; this year there is a deficit of £3,500,000. How is that deficit this year to be met? I come at once to what I know is in the minds of the Committee—the question of the new charges. A good deal of comment has been made, as if these new charges were by a new Postmaster-General out of an old bureaucracy. They are nothing of the kind. The principal increased charges were announced last year, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made his Budget statement. I will quote what was then said:
Charges for postcards and printed papers will also be raised.
The Committee will remember that these are the two increases round which most of the controversy has ranged.
The inland rates for these cannot be put up until the foreign rate is increased, and the foreign rate depends upon the decision of the International Congress which meets at Madrid in the autumn. We propose, however, to take power now to increase the charge for postcards to 1½d., and for printed papers proportionately, but not to bring these changes into force until after the Conference."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1920; col. 82, Vol. 128.]
That was in April of last year. I submit, therefore, that it cannot be said with any semblance of accuracy that these are sudden increases, made with complete indifference to the authority of the House of Commons, and so rapidly that traders have been unable to make their arrangements. Whatever else may be said about the present Postmaster-General—and he has been surveyed from a good many angles during the past week—I hope that this at least is true, that he is a good House of Commons man, and certainly I should have taken no part in connection with these increased charges if it could with any semblance of truth be said that we have gone behind the authority of the House. Not only was that announcement made in the most specific terms by the Leader of the House, but the House proceeded to pass an Act of Parliament, the Post and Telegraph Act, without a Division on either its Second or Third Reading, and, after considerable discussion on both these charges in Committee. I therefore submit that, so far as that part of the case is concerned, I have established that it is untrue to say that full notice was not given of these charges, or that there was any attempt on the part of the Executive to go behind the authority of the House. The Authority of the House has been given to these charges in the Act of Parliament to which I have referred, and which was passed both as to its Second and Third Readings without a Division.
Now as to the charges themselves. The 2d. letter remains untouched. The 2d. letter is the great reservoir of revenue in the Post Office. I have seen it stated that we are proposing increases in postal charges at a time when the postal services themselves are making handsome surpluses. It is true that on the postal services as a whole—letters, postcards, printed matter, parcels, and so on—there
was a surplus on last year's working of £900,000, but that surplus was not made on postcards; it was not made on printed papers. The surplus was made on the 2d. letter. On the postcards and the printed papers there was a substantial loss, as I will show when I refer to those particular increased charges. Letters for the British Empire and the United States of America, which are now charged 2d. for the first ounce, will remain at 2d. for the first ounce, but there will be an additional charge of 1½d., instead of 1d. as at present, for each additional ounce. Letters to the United States have for a great number of years received the same rate as the Imperial post. The Committee will see that as far as letters within the Empire are concerned, the first charge will remain untouched.
I come now to letters going to foreign countries. The present rate is 2½d. for the first ounce. We propose to increase it to 3d. for the first ounce. The present charge for each additional ounce is 1½d. We do not propose to make any change in regard to the additional ounce. The charge on foreign postcards will go up from 1d. to 1½d. There will be an increased charge on foreign parcels. The increase in the British credit for foreign parcels will be from 10d. to 1s. 6d. I may explain to the Committee that the charge for a foreign parcel is made up of three elements. There is the British credit, the credit for the services rendered by the British Post Office; there is the out-payment for sea transit, and there is the out-payment for transit and terminal administration in the country where the parcels are delivered.
The next item is the one on which most public attention has been concentrated in connection with these increases, and it was the one which from the first caused me the most anxiety. That anxiety arose from my experience in the Department of Overseas Trade, where I learned that the most effective form of propaganda, the most simple and plastic form of propaganda, on behalf of British industry is that which is done by the British technical and trade journals. The most effective form of propaganda on behalf of the British spirit abroad, distinguishing here between British industry and British spirit, is done by the British newspapers which go abroad. It was with the greatest reluctance that I found myself faced
with this proposal to increase the charge for printed papers, which covers both the technical journals and the newspapers going to foreign countries and the Dominions. I have received from some of the most influential commercial organisations in this country very powerful representations that, in their judgment, the effect of this increase would be seriously to hamper our propaganda overseas, in comparison with the United States and Germany in particular, and I am bound to say that I felt the force of that.
I submitted this consideration to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) and other Members of the Cabinet, and as a result of our conference it was decided that, as far as this proposal is concerned, it should be dropped. We do not, therefore, propose to increase the rate which is now levied on foreign printed papers. I must say that on purely financial grounds I should have preferred that this had been dealt with in some other way, but it has become a question of a balance of advantages. And as at this moment the supreme interest of this country is the recovery of its foreign and colonial markets, and the strengthening of its position in those markets, I have thought that we ought not to allow what might be described as financial pedantry to stand in the way. We have therefore decided to make that change in our proposals. I am glad to say that I hope the dropping of that sum of £300,000 will not seriously jeopardise the prospect of balancing our accounts at the end of the year. We have provided for rather more than the loss of £3,500,000 on the year's working, and I hope it will be possible to make that change, which I am glad to find is approved by the Committee, without calling on the Exchequer for a subsidy at the end of the year.
I have now disposed of the increases in regard to the foreign post, and I come to the two principal increases in the home post, namely, inland printed papers and inland postcards. As to printed papers, that is, circulars and similar printed matter which is sent through the post by commercial houses, every one of these costs the Post Office 1¼d., and there is a loss on the printed paper post to-day of £2,400,000. That is a very serious thing, and I do not think that we stand in such a financial position
to-day that we are justified in asking the general body of the taxpayers of the country to find that £2,400,000, but that we are justified in asking the users of the post to make up some part of that great deficit. We therefore propose to raise the rate for printed papers from ½d. for the first ounce to 1d. minimum per two ounces, with ½d. for each additional two ounces. The proposed rate will therefore be 1d. for the first two ounces and a ½d. for each additional two ounces. That represents½d. on circulars not exceeding one ounce, but no additional charge on the higher rates. We estimate to secure by that increased charge an increased revenue of £1,000,000, after having allowed for a reduction in the numbers sent by 25 per cent.
The next point is the inland postcard. Each postcard carried through the post to-day is carried at a loss. The cost of carrying a postcard is over 1d. I do not think it is sufficiently realised by those who criticise these proposals that the cost of handling a postcard, and sending it through the post is very nearly as great as the cost of handling a letter, and sending it through the post. That is the explanation of the reason why we made such a large profit on the 2d. letter post. There is unquestionably a very large surplus there, but the cost of the postcard to-day is over 1d. In those circumstances, I think the same considerations apply as apply to printed papers, that we are not justified, in the position in which the country stands, in asking the general body of the taxpayers to make up the deficit. We are therefore proposing to increase the rate for postcards from 1d. to 1½d., and after allowing for a reduction of 10 per cent. in numbers, and for some reversion from postcards to letters, we estimate to secure an increased revenue of £1,000,000. The present loss on the postcard service is £450,000. The increased charge we are making will, therefore, secure for us a profit of just over £500,000.
All these increases are regrettable, but I regret this, because there has grown up in this country in recent years a very interesting and a very promising industry, the picture postcard industry, an industry which has shown extraordinary capacity and ingenuity in capturing a trade from Germany, and the work of the picture post cards is to day equal in
artistic merit to anything that any other country can produce. If I thought that the alarm which the picture postcard manufacturers—Raphael Tuck and Company and similar firms—have been displaying was thoroughly well-founded, and that this was going to destroy that industry, it is quite obvious that no Post-master-General and no Government would propose it. I believe that the picture postcard industry has overlooked the importance of the consideration that they will be able to send a picture pos card which only contains five words, that is, which is not in the nature of a letter, at the printed paper rate of 1d., and in these circumstances I cannot believe that it is going to have so serious an effect on the picture postcard industry as has been anticipated. There is also the increase in the registration fee for letters from 2d., which is the pre-war charge, to 3d. That ends all I have to say in regard to the increased charges.

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: What about the rate to America?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have said that the United States ranks with the Dominions, and I dealt with that quite fully just now. These are the increased charges. They give us an increased revenue in round figures of £2,500,000. Our deficit in round figures is £3,500,000. I have therefore to find another £1,000,000 if our accounts are to balance and we are not to go to the Exchequer for a subsidy. In looking round for means to find that other £1,000,000, I came upon the Sunday post. The Government have decided that, in the present condition of things, we are not justified in maintaining the Sunday post throughout the country, when a saving of £1,000,000 can be effected by cutting it off. I cannot believe that there is so grave a hardship in this proposal as is made out by some critics. After all, London has got on fairly well without a Sunday post, and a good many Londoners have regarded the absence of a Sunday post as a blessing. We propose to extend that blessing over a wider range. That is not the only consideration. I do believe that so far as is possible it is in the interests of the country as a whole that Sunday labour should be diminished wherever it can be done without grave inconvenience. Obviously in a modern State you cannot get rid of Sunday labour altogether, but wherever it can be done,
Sunday labour should be abolished. I think it is one of the points in the International Labour Convention, and I am certain, therefore, that my hon. Friends in the Labour party will give me their enthusiastic support in carrying out the proposal of the International Labour Convention, of which they are such enthusiastic champions.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is there not to be a Sunday night clearance of letters?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I will come to the details later. It has always been impressed on us by the representatives of the Post Office workers that this is one of the hardships of the Post Office service, that the men have to work on a Sunday. I propose to get rid of that hardship, but it is one of the most remarkable traits of human nature that there is nothing that it parts with more reluctantly than with its hardships. It is extraordinary how we cling to our grievances.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: That is why we continue this Government in office.

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have not noticed my Noble Friend has made any laborious efforts in that direction. I realise that this is going to cause considerable inconvenience in those parts of the country which have been used to the Sunday post, and it also is a question which must have an effect on the conditions of labour of a great number of the postal workers. On that last point—and I notice that three Members of the Labour party have put down a proposal to reduce the Estimates by £100—may I say this, that I saw a deputation of the leaders of the Postal Workers' Union one day last week, and discussed the question with them. As a result of that discussion, they agreed to meet the officials of the Post Office, with whom they have been used to negotiate, and discuss fully every respect in which it can be shown that these changes are going to cause hardship or a worsening of conditions to the Post Office servants? We shall do everything that can reasonably be done to alleviate hardship or the worsening of the conditions of the staff.
Now I come to the steps we propose to take to reduce the inconvenience which must inevitably be caused in some parts of the country. We propose that collections shall be made late on Sunday night, or early on Monday
morning, so as to enable the delivery of letters to be made in the neighbourhood by first post on Monday morning.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: In the rural districts?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I should like to consider further about the rural districts. I do not think I can carry it that far. I do not want to be pressed into making so many concessions that the saving of the £1,000,000 will be whittled away, and I shall have to go to the taxpayer to make it up. We propose experimentally, to arrange for the dispatch, at stated hours on Sunday, of express letters addressed either to London, or between a number of the largest towns the names of which have, I think, already been published in the Press. If, however, any hon. Member desires to have these names, I will see that they are placed at the disposal of the Committee before the proceedings on this Vote are concluded. We shall do everything that can be done, subject to maintaining the great bulk of the saving of this £1,000,000, to minimise the inconvenience of the thing. That, then, broadly covers the new proposals. In exact figures we hope to get from them an increased revenue of £3,453,000, as against the deficit, in exact figures, of £3,436,000. In spite of the concessions which I have made, in reply to the representations of my hon. Friend regarding printed papers, I still hope that we shall be able to balance our accounts, and not have to call for a subsidy. It must, however, be obvious that all these Estimates depend a good deal on the trend of trade during the next year. I have told the Committee how sensitive the Post Office revenue is to depression in trade, and if the depression in trade be continued throughout the year, these Estimates can not be realised. If trade, however, improves, as we hope it may, towards the end of the year, then, I think, we can realise our Estimates.
It has been put to me in more than one quarter that there is going to be a sudden falling-off in the use of the post—that we shall not get these increases, even under normal conditions, and that the official Estimates are unreliable. I have myself tested that in the best way at my disposal. I asked the officials in the Post Office to give me a statement of recent increases in postage rates, the Estimate at the time the increases were made, and the actual
result secured. This is what I found. There was an increase in postal charges in 1915. The Post Office Estimate of revenue was £1,740,000, while the revenue secured was £1,970,000. In 1918 there was again an increase of the postal charges. The estimated revenue was £4,000,000, and the revenue received was £4,430,000. In 1920 the Estimate in connection with the increased charges was £6,770,000, and the revenue received was £5,930,000.
Taking these three Estimates together, and having regard to the many fluctuating conditions which affect the revenue, I think they are a very remarkable tribute to the knowledge of their work which the officials of the Post Office display, and I see no reason to anticipate that their present Estimates should not be realised. I have to come now to another point which has been impressed upon me by several Members of the House, and which has also been widely developed in the Press. It is that we could get this increased revenue by reducing the charges. If only that could be demonstrated to me, I should be the happiest man in the House. Just let us examine it in the light of the information we now have.
There is no business in the world in which the proportion of overhead charges is so small as in the Post Office business. Far and away the greatest proportion of our expenditure is in actual handling charges, and it is only in the slightest degree, therefore, that we can reduce our overhead charges by increasing the bulk of our business. The number of postal packets carried through the post this year was, in round figures, 5,579,000,000 packets, which was a decrease of about 3½ per cent., as compared with 1913–14. Supposing we went back to the penny post, and we got the whole number carried in 1913–14 to wipe out that 3½ per cent. deficit—and I think hon. Members who suggest this would be very sanguine to suppose that, having regard to the depression in trade—but supposing you have got all this, what would be the result in the way of increased revenue on the reduced charges? The increase in revenue at the rates charged would bring us in £1,000,000, and the loss of revenue as a result of going from the twopenny to the penny post would be £20,000,000. I simply submit that fact, which I have carefully examined
—and which after all is only a matter of arithmetic—to the Committee with confidence that at least it shows that the idea, that by reducing charges you necessarily increase your revenue, needs very very careful examination.
Nobody dare take that risk in the present condition of affairs. I am satisfied any attempt along those lines to make up this deficit would land us in financial difficulties of the gravest possible character. What is the explanation of the deficit in the Post Office business? It can be put into two words: "War bonus." Every examination of these accounts, examine how you please, leads to the same conclusion—that the deficit in the Post Office Estimate is principally due to the war bonus.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Commander BELLAIRS: Do away with it.

Mr. KELLAWAY: I hope the Committee will allow me to examine this. I am putting it quite frankly, and the matter has to be examined from every possible point of view. I intend to leave out no consideration that tells against or in my favour, against the war bonus or in favour of it. I want to put the whole facts in regard to the war bonus frankly before the Committee. I am going to make a comparison between our accounts for 1921–22 and 1913–14. Our expenditure in 1913–14 was £27,400,000. Our expenditure this year is estimated at £70,000,000, an increase of 155 per cent. How is that increase built up? What are the principal elements in it? Salaries and wages, with war bonus, added have gone up from £15,668,000 in 1913–14, to £46,386,000 in the current year, an increase of 200 per cent. Of that increase of £30,718,000 £28,000,000 is accounted for by the war bonus. The other increases are conveyance of mails, which has gone up from £3,912,000 to £8,835,000, an increase of 125 per cent. Materials have gone up from £819,000 to £2,272,000, or an increase of 177 per cent., and the services of other Departments and depreciation of plant, pensions liability, interest on capital, and miscellaneous items, have gone up from £7,000,000 to £12,500,000, an increase of 79 per cent. The Committee will see that the dominating factor in these accounts are salaries, wages, and war bonus.
I want now to analyse these figures a little more closely. I regret having to impose so many figures on the Committee, but I believe it to be absolutely essential for my purpose. The total staff of the Post Office consists of 233,000 persons, including the engineering staff, which is not usually included. Of these 185,000 receive a basic wage of £2 a week or less—that is a basic wage leaving out the war bonus.

Sir C. OMAN: And with the war bonus?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Of these, 40,000 receive a basic wage of between £2 a week and £200 a year; 8,000 receive salaries between £200 and £500 a year; 404 persons receive between £500 and £1,000 a year; and 26 persons receive salaries of £1,000 a year and over.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: Up to what?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I think the highest figure is £3,000 to the Permanent Secretary. I am not exactly certain, but I will see that that figure is given to the Committee before the Estimate is disposed of. I said 26 persons receive a salary of £1,000 a year and over. I should like to make this observation on that last figure: You cannot get first-class brains for third-class salaries. It seems desirable to have the courage to say that, in my opinion, the salaries paid to some of the heads of the Post Office are not adequate to the work they are doing. I think my hon. Friend opposite (Sir C. Oman) feels some hesitation in accepting that. I see no reason why I should hesitate to tell the House an experience we have had during the last two weeks. I am saying this without having consulted the official concerned, and as to whether or not he desires to have it said. One of our most important men, a man with a real gift for economy and a European reputation, has been offered a salary three times what the Government is now paying him.

Sir C. OMAN: Offered in this country?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes.

Sir C. OMAN: With a pension?

Mr. KELLAWAY: With something very much more attractive than a pension. I believe that here is a real danger to the efficiency of Government offices. If we start economising on brains, we shall lose
in money, and I think the House should have the courage to face the fact. That was why I was led to make that observation in regard to it. I will now deal with the distribution of the war bonus among the different classes of the staff. £19,320,000 goes to persons whose basic wage is not more than £2 per week; £6,600,000 goes to persons receiving between £2 a week and £200 a year; £1,900,000 goes to officials receiving between £200 and £500 a year; £164,000 goes to officials receiving between £500 and £1,000 a year; and £16,000 is divided among officials receiving £1,000 a year and over.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the aggregate figures of the salaries of these different classes?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have not worked them out, but I will have them worked out. The Post Office, in regard to this question of war bonus, is carrying out a scheme which applies to the whole of the Government service, and it is unquestionably the fact that to day the Government servant has a substantial advantage as compared with men engaged in other industries. That is due to the fact that the cost of living is reviewed at intervals of six months. It is now being paid on the basis of 165, and it will be reviewed again in September, by which time we anticipate it will have gone down to about 128.
It is obvious that the Government servant is securing a substantial advantage over those engaged in industries, but that is only one side of the story. The Government servant is gaining now, but he was a very substantial loser right up to last year. Whilst the cost of living was steadily rising, his war bonus lagged very far behind what he was actually paid. I am sure every Member of this Committee, however much he dislikes the war bonus—nobody dislikes it more than I do—wants to do the straight thing and the fair thing, so that there will not be any breach of faith in this business. If the Government has committed itself to an arrangement between the Government and its officials under which the officials suffered at one time, but under which they are gaining at the present time, we cannot tear up that agreement. At the end of 1917, the cost of living figure was 83 per cent. The war bonus paid to a man getting 35s. a week was 40 per cent.
At the end of 1918 the cost of living had gone up to 120 per cent., and the bonus paid to a man getting 35s. a week was 66 per cent. At the end of 1919 the cost of living had risen to 123 per cent., and the bonus paid to a man getting 35s. a week was 99 per cent. Therefore the higher-paid men lagged much further behind than the men who were receiving the low wages. Consequently, the Government gained at that time, although they are losing now.
In regard to the general case for the war bonus, I do not think I can add to what was said by the President of the Board of Trade when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but I ask whether there is not something gained in having secured for this great body of workers the acceptance of the principle of the sliding scale, under which, as the cost of living comes down, their wages come down as well. Is there nothing gained in that? I wonder how much the coal mining industry would like to have had that accepted when the war bonus was given, and the same applies to the cotton industry and engineering.
It is difficult to get a reduction of wages among any class of men. You cannot get butter out of a dog's mouth. Without this arrangement, this is what would have happened. Every increase last year in the cost of living would have been followed by a demand from the great body of postal servants for an increase in wages, and that would probably have been conceded after much turmoil. But that would not have ended the trouble. When we came to the point where the cost of living went down, we should have made deductions, and that would have been a fresh disturbing element. Therefore, I submit that the state of things now is not altogether a loss. On the contrary, I think it is a gain that we have these great bodies of workers accepting the principle that their wages shall be reduced parallel with a fall in the cost of living, without disturbance and without strife. The position will be reviewed again in September.

Commander BELLAIRS: Was it not reviewed last April.

Mr. KELLAWAY: No, it was in March. I will now give some figures to show what we expect to happen in September, when the position is reviewed. The present
bonus paid to a man whose basic wage is 40s. is 61s. 7d., and his bonus on the 1st September, if the cost of living go down, as we anticipate, to 128, will be reduced to 48s. 6d., or a reduction of 13s. 1d. per week. Where the basic wage is 50s., the reduction will be 14s. 8d. per week. Where the basic wage is 60s. a week, there will be a reduction of 16s. 3d. per week. There are a good many employers of labour in this House, and I ask them to consider those figures. We shall get, possibly without disturbance, a reduction of 13s. 1d. per week on the £2 per week basic man, and this reduction will amount to 16s. 3d. per week in the case of the men whose wages are £3 a week. If we can secure those substantial reductions in this way, is there nothing gained? When I think what might happen if employers asked their men to consent to an immediate reduction of 16s. per week, with the certainty of a further reduction if the cost of living go down, I think there is a good deal to be said in favour of a scheme which, while the Government suffers from it to-day, has provided a scientific method by which these war bonuses can be dealt with.
I do not disguise the fact that it is the-War bonus that accounts for our deficit last year and this year. We hear people ask, "Why does not the Post Office go back to the good old days before the War when they made surpluses, and when economic management prevailed?" I would point out that the year 1913 was not the last year the Post Office made a surplus. In 1914–15 the Post Office made a surplus—I am giving round figures—of £3,500,000; in 1915–16 the surplus was £5,300,000; in 1916–17 it was £6,000,000; in 1917–18 it was £6,600,000; in 1918–19 it was £7,400,000. The total surpluses realised between 1914 and 1919 was nearly £30,000,000 earned for the State. During the whole of that period the Post Office servants' bonus lagged far behind the cost of living.
In 1920 we came to our first deficit, and we fell from a surplus of over £7,000,000 to a deficit of £1,128,000. The explanation of that is that between those two years the war bonus went up from £8,700,000 to £17,000,000. In 1920–21 the deficit was £7,300,000, and the War bonus went up from £17,000,005 to £27,000,000. In 1921–22 the deficit was £3,400,000, and the war bonus went up from £27,000,000; to £28,000,000.
I have now given the Committee the whole of the facts upon which they can come to a judgment. I have to look at this question from the point of view of a man who is the agent of the House, employing a staff of over 200,000 people. I do not believe that that staff, taking the basic wage, is extravagantly paid, and I do not think anybody will say that the figure I have given is extravagant. They are a loyal and an efficient body of men. I know no better worker in this country than the postman, and very rarely you see a postman loafing. I can only hope to secure a continuance of that loyal service if they have faith in the word of the Government and the Postmaster-General, and if ever it could be shown that the Government were guilty of a breach of faith in dealing with these men, then the discontented element, the men who are more concerned with stirring up strife than securing good service in the Post Office, would seize upon the allegation of a breach of faith, in order to create discontent and disturb the efficiency of the service.
I therefore put it to the Committee that we cannot treat this war bonus arrangement as a scrap of paper. The Government gained over a period of years, and the men expect this arrangement to be carried out. Although we are losing by it now, we mean to carry it out, and I see no other way in order to secure loyal service from a great body of men. If the war bonus remain the deficit is inevitable until such time as it comes down substantially. If I could get rid of the war bonus, I could go back to the penny letter and the halfpenny postcard, and to nearly every one of our pre-War charges.
The point is, could these increases have been avoided by economies in the Department? The Committee will see that we cannot touch the principle of that £28,000,000 war bonus; but is the staff extravagant, is it over-staffed? Let me examine this point. Leaving out the engineering staff, the present staff of the Post Office is 208,000, and the pre-War staff in 1913–14 was 208,900. There has been a reduction of 900, excluding the engineering staff. The postal work is as great now as it was in 1913–14. A slight falling off in the number of letters has been made up by an increase of telephone work and an increase in the number of
parcels carried, and although the work remains as great as it was in 1913–14, it has been done with a slightly smaller staff. I will not trouble the Committee with the figures, but it is a fact that the body of the work is as great as it was in 1913–14.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Has there not been a lot of fresh work put on the postal staff?

5.0 P.M.

Mr. KELLAWAY: That is so. Not only have they done the same bulk of work with a smaller staff, but they have had to do a lot of new work. In reference to war pensions, 90,000,000 separate payments were made last year. Anybody who has had experience of our suburban Post Offices on Mondays or Tuesdays knows that they are crowded out with people not there for ordinary Post Office work, but in connection with these new duties. Those 90,000,000 separate war pension payments are all new work since 1914; also 91,000,000 issues and repayments of War Savings Certificates. As a result of the War Bonds, the Stock accounts of the Savings Bank have risen from 184,000 in 1913–14 to, 4,500,000, involving payment of 9,500,000 separate dividends every year. The Savings Bank Accounts have gone up in number from 9,000,000 in 1913–14 to 13,500,000, while the cash passing through the Post Office in connection with those transactions has increased from £526,000,000 in 1913–14 to £1,512,000,000 last year. I hope I shall not over-emphasise any part of my subject, but I submit that, with a slightly smaller staff doing the same bulk of ordinary postal work, and all these enormous transactions added to the Post Office, there is no ground for a general and sweeping allegation of wasteful personnel. I said that I excluded the engineering staff both in 1913–14 and to-day. That staff has increased from 20,000 to 25,000. That is due to the mileage of wire having grown by 46 per cent., and the far larger equipment which has to be handled, and it is largely due to the effort the Post Office is making to overtake arrears of telephone construction.
On those figures there is no ground for a general charge, a sweeping allegation, of wasteful use of personnel in the Post Office. But we cannot rest there. The first interest of the State is economy; the second interest of the State is
economy; and the third interest of the State is economy; and I desire to secure in the Post Office every economy which can be carried out without the efficiency of the work suffering. I would like to let the Committee know the steps which have already been taken to bring about a further reduction in staff. Every local postmaster and surveyor has received the most drastic instructions to cut down his staff to the lowest limit consistent with the work which he has to carry through. Travelling committees are now visiting all the big post offices in the country, and investigating in detail the staffs there, with a view to seeing if we cannot get reductions on the postal and telegraph side. As a result of these efforts, the staff is now being reduced at the rate of 400 per month, and I hope that that rate of reduction will continue. It certainly must continue as long as the present depression in trade goes on.
I have dealt with the main points. I have examined the main considerations in regard to these charges, but there are one or two other considerations which I will put very briefly to the Committee, for I think it is necessary that the Committee should have them in mind. I find amongst all classes of the community, and all parties in this House, a great fear of what is called the "bureaucrat." For my part, I would have a petition added to the Litany" From all bureaucrats and other superior persons, Good Lord deliver us." I would rather be governed by the devil than by a bureaucrat. This is the characteristic of a bureaucrat—he has all the private and nearly all the public virtues. He is extraordinarily efficient. He is absolutely incorruptible. He is a terrific worker. But he has one vice, which is the most intolerable that can beset any man having authority in a free country, and that is, he desires to give the people what he thinks is good for them, rather than what they want.

Mr. ESMOND HARMSWORTH: You cannot get rid of them.

Mr. KELLAWAY: I think that is the most intolerable vice. That is where he differs from the business man. The business man gives the people what he thinks they want, rather than impose upon the people what he thinks is for their good. It is supposed that the Post Office is staffed with bureaucrats. I have not been there very long, but I have not met them
yet. If I do meet them, my attitude towards them will be the attitude I have tried to sum up this afternoon in the expression of my view of what a bureaucrat is. I have not yet met bureaucrats in the Post Office service. What I have met, so far, are some of the ablest men it has ever been my pleasure to meet in connection with either government or business.

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: Supposing a bureaucrat is found to be thoroughly inefficient, what is the machinery for getting rid of him?

Mr. KELLAWAY: If I find a bureaucrat, I shall be very disappointed if I do not find any machinery to get rid of him.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: Does the right hon. Gentleman know of any machinery for dismissing him?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have not gone sufficiently into the question of bureaucrats to find the machinery, and I cannot refer the hon. Member to chapter and verse, but I will say this: if I find the bureaucrat, I will find means of getting rid of him. Having said a word about bureaucrats, I want to come to another point, which, I think, will be of great interest to the Committee. I think it is most essential, especially in a Government Department like the Post Office, that it ought to be in close touch with the business community,, and that there should be harmonious relations between them, and a feeling of confidence. It is bad for the Post Office that there should be a feeling amongst the business community that their point of view is not sufficiently understood, and I desire to take a step which, I think, will have the effect of increasing the confidence which the business community has in the permanent officials of the Post Office and the Postmaster-General, and have the advantage of a business point of view on every large question which arises in connection with the Post Office. I have therefore decided to establish in connection with the Post Office a Post Office Council, composed of business men, and I should like to give the Committee the names of this Council. I am glad to say that all these gentlemen have agreed, and agreed very promptly, because, although my letter was only sent out less than a fortnight ago, I have had this response from:

Anderson, Sir Alan, Joint Manager, Orient Line; Director, Bank of England; Director, Midland Railway.
Bell, Mr. Henry, Managing Director, Lloyd's Bank.
Barrie, Mr. C. C. M.P., Partner, Charles Barrie & Sons.
Blakemore, Mr. F. G., President, National Chamber of Trade.
Balfour, Mr. Arthur, President, Sheffield Chamber of Commerce.
Burnham, Rt. Hon. Viscount, President, Empire Press Union.
Cheesman, Mr. Godfrey, General Secretary, National Union of Manufacturers.
Colwyn, Lord.
Dewrance, Sir John, Chairman, Babcock and Wilcox; President, Engineering and National Employers' Federation.
Howard, Mr. Charles, Chairman, Baltic Exchange.
Hartshorn, Mr. Vernon, M.P.
Johnston, Sir George Lawson, Chairman, Bovril, Ltd.
Holland Martin, Mr. R., Secretary, Bankers' Clearing House.
Manville, Mr. E., M.P., Consulting Engineer; Chairman, Daimler, Ltd.
Rylands, Sir Peter, President, Federation of British Industries.
Selfridge, Mr. Gordon, Founder of Selfridges Ltd.

(Perhaps I may be allowed to make a comment here. One of our newspaper critics suggested it would pay the Government to engage Mr. Gordon Selfridge at a salary of £10,000 a year to manage the Post Office. I am glad to say he is willing to give us his assistance for nothing.)

Stockton, Sir Edwin, President, Manchester Chamber of Commerce.
Satterthwaite, Colonel, Secretary to Committee for General Purposes, Stock Exchange.
Williams, Sir Thomas, late General Manager, London and North-Western Railway.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: What power will the Council have?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The Committee will agree that that is a pretty strong body of men. I think they will agree there are no
"passengers" amongst them, and I hope that they will see that they become a real and effective instrument in assisting the economical and efficient management of the Post Office and its development. I have not yet held a meeting. I shall hold a meeting, I hope, next week, when I shall discuss with these gentlemen what they think will be the proper powers to exercise. I do not want to make a statement with regard to those powers until I have had an opportunity of discussion with them. But I think the existence of a body such as that, if given real opportunity of exercising its influence, will be of great benefit to the Post Office and to those who use the Post Office. The next point is a change in the Post Office itself. While I have no doubt in my own mind as to the wisdom of establishing this Business Council, I also propose to establish in the Post Office a Board of the heads of the main branches of the post office work. The Committee may be surprised to find that there has been no such organised body in the Post Office, but it is so. I am sure it will be of great help to the Post Office that the heads of each branch of its work—telephones, telegraphs, engineering, and those responsible for finance—should be meeting together periodically and reviewing the work not only of their own section, but of the Post Office as a whole. I am certain each man will do his own job better for having an intelligent knowledge of the work of the Post Office as a whole, and that that must make for economical administration.
I have practically concluded what I have to say, but I come back now to the main point, and it is this. The decision for the Committee to take is between whether we shall meet this deficit by a subsidy from the State, or whether it shall be met in the way I have proposed. Frankly, I have examined it with all the care I can bring to bear upon it, and I see no alternative at present. I want to warn the Committee, and I would like to warn the country, against the danger of subsidies. Subsidies are the primrose path down which this country may go to the everlasting bonfire. If subsidies be granted, they will destroy the efficiency of industries. They will destroy the security of property, and the very foundation of society in this country. We must take the first opportunity we have of sweeping them away. We now have an
opportunity of sweeping away this subsidy, and I hope we shall be supported in doing that. It was no pleasure to me to have to take the unpopular course of raising charges, and to ask the Committee to support me, but I saw no alternative, though I look forward to making a very different statement here if the variations of fate leave me in my present post. When I made the statement in the House about the increased charges, I included an announcement of some significance It was that any reductions in cost which were effected must go to reduce the charges. If we are to have surpluses in the future, I do not want them raided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I got the Cabinet to agree that any gain which is effected will go, not to the Exchequer, but to the reduction of charges. I thank the Committee for the patience with which it has listened to my long and detailed statement. It was bound to be a disagreeable and an unpopular statement; but any way, I have now put the facts frankly before the Committee, and I ask for its support.

Mr. A. SHORT: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £100.
I think I shall be expressing the sense and feeling of the Committee in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman upon his very clear and concise, and shall I say in many particulars cogent speech in the introduction of these Estimates. I have no doubt in my own mind that he has removed from the minds of hon. Members associated with all parties in the House many doubts and suspicions regarding the very serious proposal that he has been compelled to submit to the Committee this afternoon: He has made references in his speech to the losses on inland printed papers, which I think he estimated at somewhere in the neighbour hood of £2,400,000. He also referred to the losses upon printed postcards. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if at some later period he will explain how these losses are calculated. I think we are entitled to know by what method or what procedure he arrives at the costs entailed and also at the losses, and if he will give us that information he will clear away some of the doubt that exists, at any rate in my own mind. The right hon.
Gentleman has made reference also to the creation of an Advisory Council, and has quoted a list of distinguished and eminent business men and also Members of this House who are to constitute it. I have no doubt they will bring good judgment to bear in so far as the duties allotted to them are concerned. That is, if I understand it aright, and with the limited information placed before us this afternoon, undoubtedly a distinct departure, in so far as the administration of great Government offices of this kind is concerned, and it certainly is a distinct departure so far as the Post Office is affected. I may express regret that the right hon. Gentleman was unable to lay before the Committee some idea of the powers that will fall on the shoulders of such an Advisory Council. I do not assume for a moment that the powers, whatever they are, will in any way undermine the responsibility of himself to this House.

Mr. KELLAWAY: Hear, hear.

Mr. SHORT: Despite the concessions that he has made, I think I may safely say that the proposed increases have aroused a great deal of disquiet in business circles, and I do not think that the concessions he has granted will remove entirely the feeling that now exists in industrial circles. When one considers that these increases are to take place in conjunction with a curtailment of the postal services of the country, I think we ought even now, despite the concessions, to be entitled to make some protest against them. Having regard to the industrial position of our country, with the possibility, as I hope and as we all hope, that in a few days a great attempt will be made to revive trade and destroy the stagnation and depression of trade that exists at the moment, these increases must inevitably have an adverse effect on the recovery of trade, and they must, in so far as they interfere with the expenditure of money, which is limited in quantity, and the shortage of money for business purposes, which is largely due to heavy taxes, these increases must have an adverse effect on trade and on the recovery of trade. Further, I doubt whether they will add to the income of the Post Office, as the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to demonstrate they will this afternoon. I should have been better pleased if the right hon. Gentleman had made some
reference to the telephone service and the telegraph service, upon which there are enormous deficits.

Mr. KELLAWAY: I should not like it to go out that there is an enormous deficit on the telephone service. The Telephone Estimate for this year shows a balance.

Mr. SHORT: Does that apply to the telegraph service?

Mr. KELLAWAY: No, it does not, but I do not want it to go out that the telephone service is a loss, and that we are making up that loss by increased charges on the other services.

Mr. SHORT: I understood from a question answered by the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago that there was a deficit upon both of these services, a deficit on the telegraph service of £4,000,000 and on the telephone service somewhere in the neighbourhood of £4,200,000.

Mr. KELLAWAY: That was last year.

Mr. SHORT: At any rate, I should have been better satisfied if, so far as the deficit on the telephone service is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman had indicated what measures he proposed to take to obviate the continuance of that deficit, and to give the users of the telegraph service a better service than they enjoy at the moment. It appears to me to be bad policy to call upon the poorer members of the community who do not use these services to any great extent—they are largely the preserve of business and well-to-do people—it is bad policy to call upon the poorer elements in the community to make up the deficit by increasing the charges upon postcards and printed communications. I may safely say that low charges, in so far as our postal services are concerned for bur means of communication, are the life-blood of our commercial prosperity, and the whole history of the Post Office indicates, going as far back as the eighteenth century, that whenever charges have been reduced that step has always led to a greater and growing volume of trade so far as the Post Office is concerned. While I will not quote figures which I have by me at the moment on that point, I think it is important the Committee should remember that it is a fact. The right hon. Gentleman has decided to withdraw the
increase upon printed matter which is going out of the country. How does he propose to prevent business houses in this country sending printed matter abroad and bringing it back again into this country, thereby gaining an advantage by means of the foreign postage. I understand that that is a possibility, and that it is already being done. I have here a quotation from a weekly newspaper which says that Messrs. William Dawson and Sons, Limited, the well-known agents and exporters, will, as a result of the increased foreign postal newspaper rates, have to transfer their export newspaper trade from the British to the French Post Office, and he goes on to explain that they will post all their Overseas newspaper parcels in Paris, if the new rates are insisted upon. I have already received a circular issued from a London office but posted in Belgium and delivered here with the object of getting an advantage over the right hon. Gentleman's Department because of the increase in these charges.

Mr. KELLAWAY: But the increased charges have not yet come into effect.

Mr. SHORT: I am only using that as an illustration and to show what advantage will be taken of these proposals. On the other hand, there is no doubt that large business firms will not spend so much money on advertising at the increased charges as they have been inclined to spend in the past. This will lead to still further unemployment and it will not prove an encouragement to trade so far as this country is concerned. As regards the Post Office becoming a kind of dumping ground for all kinds of services, I see that these services are credited to other Departments and apparently paid for, but I should like to get some information as to the basis on which they are calculated, by what method, at what rates, when the rates were fixed and when they were last revised. If the right hon. Gentleman can satisfy us upon that point we shall not perhaps continue to have some of the doubts and suspicions which we have in our minds at the present moment.
With regard to Sunday deliveries, let me say frankly that we on these benches have no desire to encourage Sunday labour. We should be well satisfied to see the more or less well-established English working week of 5½ or 6 days, and a complete
abolition of Sunday labour, so far as it can be legitimately abolished without undue injury to the public service. I understand, however, that this innovation is going to strike a serious blow at many of the workers employed in this Department. I understand that their conditions of labour will be considerably worsened, and, further, that their earnings will be considerably reduced. I think the right hon. Gentleman estimated that, as a result of this innovation, he would save £1,000,000. I am not quite clear whether he meant £1,000,000 purely on wages, or whether he meant that a saving of £1,000,000 would result from the innovation as a whole. At any rate he will be saving £1,000,000. Can he tell us what proportion of that represents loss in earnings to the individuals concerned, and will he assure us that, in the case of those who will have to travel and, in consequence of the discontinuance of the service, will not be able to return until the Monday, facilities will be given to enable them to get the necessary accommodation in the interval? It is, perhaps, peculiar that while we are now considering, and probably deciding upon, the abolition of Sunday postal services, the French Government are considering, and, I believe, have decided upon, the restoration of the Sunday delivery.
Then I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the desirability and advisability of revising the rates for Press telegrams. He makes a great point about the Committee and the Government not being willing to subsidise. Speaking for my party, I think I may say that we are not in favour of subsidies, but I understand, if my information in regard to Press telegrams is correct, that we are subsidising the Press of this country, inasmuch as they have advantages and facilities for which they do not really pay, and that we are, indeed, subsidising the great newspaper trusts and combines out of the funds and services of this Department. I believe in the freedom and liberty of the Press, and I believe it to be desirable that we should facilitate its reaching the public as quickly as possible. At the same time, I do not think it desirable that the poor taxpayer should be subsidising the Press, and particularly that section of it which is continually complaining of extravagant expenditure and demanding economy in every direction except that in which they
appear to obtain an advantage. I believe that a promise was made at sometime during the War—and I can understand why it has not been carried out—as to the initiation of what is known as the postal cheque system. It is operating in Germany, and, I believe, with advantage to Germany and German citizens, because out of the transactions the Government of Germany can make a profit of some £1,000,000. I do not want to elaborate the system, but if the right hon. Gentleman would offer some comments upon it, I should be obliged.
I should also like to hear whether he has considered the advisability of what we term non-urgent telegrams, that is to say, the charging of a smaller fee for telegrams the delivery of which would be slightly delayed, but which, nevertheless, would encourage people to send telegrams, which they decline to do now on account of the heavy rates. With regard to the wages and war bonuses of the Post Office workers, it is gratifying to find that they have so excellent and able a champion in the right hon. Gentleman. He covered the ground so admirably that he has left me little to say upon that matter, but I fully share, as I hope the Committee shares, his view that, where a large body of men and women have come to an agreement with the Government that their wages or salaries shall be regulated upon given lines, which, apparently, are to the advantage of the community, there should be no attempt by this Committee to interfere or to bring pressure to bear upon the Government to deviate in any way from the agreement into which they have entered.

Mr. G. ROBERTS: I should like to join with the hon. Member (Mr. Short) in congratulating the Postmaster-General upon his statement. From a study of the Press during the past week or so, it appeared to me that he might have contemplated quite a storm of indignation in the Committee. Evidently he was infected with the idea that conditions would be unfavourable to him, and he adopted a rather apologetic tone. I think, however, that he has passed through the ordeal with great credit to himself. I must confess that I have viewed with a great deal of trepidation the increased charges which he has had to propose. Any further burden that is placed upon industry and commerce, and
also upon the ordinary means of communication between members of the public, must be a matter of very close analysis, and must require perfect justification before it secures the sanction of this Committee. I hoped that at an early stage in this Debate we should have had the benefit of the guidance of those who have constituted themselves critics of the Postmaster-General in the country. Certain people assure us that the Postmaster-General has been rushed by a number of bureaucrats into giving support to proposals which he did not understand and which have no justification. As a representative of an industrial constituency, I regret that so far there has been no sign that we are likely to receive guidance from those who have appointed themselves chief critics in this matter, but I am hoping that at a later stage we may hear something from them. It is easy to criticise, but it is extremely difficult to put forward alternatives. I feel that it is not sufficient to play the mere party game and to make a Minister uncomfortable. If we are really seeking to represent our constituencies and the country, we ought to be prepared to put forward counter proposals for consideration, and I hoped that such proposals would have emerged ere now. As we have no sign that they are likely to be forthcoming, I venture to offer a few observations upon the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
Throughout the whole of his speech I was asking myself what economies he contemplates being able to make within his Department. It is all very well to tell us that he has to meet a certain number of charges which are fixed and beyond his competency to affect materially. We require that a Minister to-day should thoroughly overhaul his Department, with a view to ascertaining whether there is leakage or incompetency and whether he has any hope of being able to bring about more efficient administration. I recognise that, owing to the peculiarities of our political system, my right hon. Friend has had to make his speech to-day with a comparatively slight acquaintance with a Department of great complexity. I remember the time when it was suggested that a certain colleague of mine should be selected to occupy the post now held by my right hon. Friend, and I pointed out that the Post Office was, perhaps, the most complex and diffi-
cult of all Departments, and that they ought to think well before undertaking its control. Therefore, we are bound to have some sympathy and tolerance with the Postmaster-General, because he has not yet had due time to master the intricacies of his great Department. The criticism which I desired to make on that point is already largely met by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted the device of calling to his assistance a body of business men. Their names have been read out, and, I believe, will commend themselves as representative of the best business capacity in the country. The only criticism that I should like to offer is that, perhaps, too many of these gentlemen have been called in. These large Committees are often ineffective, because of the fact that you get such a multiplicity of ideas and such a plethora of wisdom showered upon you. Nevertheless, the names include those of some of the most successful business men in the country, and even some who have been suggested by the Anti-Waste campaigners as being the best men to run the Post Office.
I have been asking myself whether my right hon. Friend is making the best use of the expert Labour opinion which he must have at his disposal. I feel sure that those on the other side of the House will feel that this Committee is incomplete because it does not include representative Labour men. I am reminded, however, that there is a very highly respected and certainly one of the ablest members of the Labour party on the Committee, and that will go some way to meet the point that I wanted to make. On the other hand, there are within the Department committees representative of various grades of labour in the Joint Administrative Councils. It was my good fortune, while at the Ministry of Labour, to take the initiative in the establishment of those councils within the Civil Service, and therefore I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has at his disposal in organised fashion the advice of those competent to guide him on Labour matters. He is proposing to set up a Council, consisting of the heads of the various Departments, who will survey the Post Office services as a whole. I am very much surprised that the Post Office has been so tardy in availing itself of a body of this character. In my experience, in various other Ministries it had already become a common practice. In
two in which I served we had these staff boards meeting regularly, and I can attest from my own personal experience how valuable such an expedient was, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman-on having recourse to it.
I should like to make a few observations upon his proposals. It has always been the experience of the Post Office that Press telegrams have never yet paid, and having regard to the fact that the Press is now a very well established and I believe prosperous corporation as a whole—[Interruption]. My hon. Friend is aware of the fact that the Government is not yet strong enough to control these Press corporations. It is felt by the average member of the community that what must make for the general profit and prosperity of these large newspaper corporations ought to be met by them. They ought to be compelled to pay an economic price for the services out of which they reap profits, and certainly a good deal of notoriety. Of course the case has always been, I believe, that the newspapers, by the collection and distribution of news, render a real public service, and it may be that there is a good deal in that fact, but my belief is that the main concern of the newspaper proprietor to-day is not so much the serving of the general public as the building up of their own businesses, and therefore I certainly feel that in this direction there is room for a good deal of inquiry with a view to ascertaining whether this part of the work of the Post Office should not be placed on a sound basis, just as you require the collection and distribution of letters shall be, on behalf of the general community.
Again, I am a little perturbed because representations have been made to me respecting the proposal to abolish the Sunday delivery of letters. Everyone of us, of course, subscribes to the theory that we should like to do away with Sunday labour altogether, although I apprehend that Sunday to many of us would be a dull institution were it not for the fact that some of our fellows labour for us on that day. It has been acknowledged that this is a rule that you cannot carry out absolutely, and that it is impossible in the modern state of society to ensure that everyone shall rest on one particular day in the week. Nevertheless, generally speaking, I believe it is our common purpose to limit Sunday lab our as far as
practicable. Therefore, when representations were first made to me against the proposal by sections of the postal workers I felt that perhaps they were for once a little illogical. But they urged upon me this consideration, that Sunday labour has always been taken into estimation in the fixation of their wages and the appraisement of their general conditions, and that its abolition will involve them in some amount of loss.
I suppose there must be some loss to the workers involved, otherwise the Postmaster-General would not be able to contemplate the effecting of a saving. I am sure in my own mind that the right hon. Gentleman is not perfectly sound in estimating that he is going to establish the whole saving in this regard, because if a strong organisation labouring under a sense of grievance is able to prove that their conditions of service have been materially disturbed, and they have been subjected to deductions in wages beyond the standard they have been entitled to expect, the right hon. Gentleman will very soon be confronted with demands for compensation which he will have extreme difficulty in contesting, and which he may have to grant, and thereby diminish one portion of the estimated savings that he would like to make. I am rather in a difficulty to understand how this system of express letters is going to work on Sunday, and how much saving in labour can be effected if that system is to obtain widely. I suppose in most of our smaller towns a comparatively small portion of the staff is engaged on Sunday. Therefore, if you maintain any system of collection and distribution of letters at all, a staff must be kept in waiting, and it may well occur that so little business will be done on a Sunday that this work can only be carried on at a considerable loss. That is the point that occurs to one. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly considered the matter thoroughly, and will be able to make some reply to it.
I recognise, and I feel we all must have been convinced that the Postmaster-General is very limited in his scope of possibility of effecting immediate economies because of the fact that the greater portion of the increased expenditure in the Post Office is attributable to the system of war bonuses. I recognise that the Government ought not to break
its bargain with its own workers, and however sharply they may be criticised for it, however many anti-waste candidates may win elections, the Government cannot afford to go back upon its workers in this regard. I remember the postal workers, and Government workers in general, were constantly making representations to me when I was at the Ministry of Labour pointing out that whereas workers in general industries were obtaining substantial and speedy concessions, these were denied to them, and they are bound to be slower in operation in a Government Department because of the fact that an advance made in a Government Department must affect similar or comparable grades in every other Department. Therefore consideration of these questions must be much more protracted than in the case of private enterprise, and it is perfectly true that for a considerable period civil servants were working at a detriment as compared with the outside worker. It may be urged by some that the outside worker was getting greater concessions than he was entitled to, but that is not a point to be argued here. The Government had to follow the general course of events and had to endeavour to make up to their employés what was being done in private business, that is, to maintain the real values of wages. They were slower in coming up, and it is not unreasonable if they should be slower in going back to the normal. At any rate, that is the system which has been adopted and has been endorsed by the House. I have had to submit proposals myself, and the House has acquiesced in them, and I should resist any desire on the part of the Government now, however hardly they were pressed by any portion of the community, to go back upon anything I did in this regard on behalf of the Government when I was acting for them, and therefore I feel sure the Government is on perfectly good ground here, and the right hon. Gentleman, by giving these figures, will enlighten the country substantially and, I believe, will rally to it the support not only of Labour, but of all reasonably minded people, and it will show that the capacity for effecting reductions is limited because of the commitments of his Ministry.
I have been associated with the printing and newspaper trade throughout the whole of my life, and therefore any
increase in postal charges which is likely to prejudice the interests of those two industries, and thereby to diminish employment, is bound to cause me a good deal of concern. There is great apprehension throughout the printing and newspaper world lest these proposals of the right hon. Gentleman may have the effect of restricting trade and causing further unemployment. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give some indication of what is likely to occur. In September war bonuses will be reviewed again. As far as we are able to anticipate it, the cost of living will show a further decline. That, of course, will mean that under the sliding scale civil servants as a whole, including Post Office workers, will suffer a reduction in the face value, although we maintain the real value of their wages will be preserved. It is reasonable to assume that substantial economies will be very soon effected, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that rather than wait for his statement next year, he ought to devise methods whereby the trading and commercial community may have the earliest possible advantage of the economies which must make themselves apparent shortly after that period.

Mr. KELLAWAY: We have taken into consideration the very substantial reduction of the war bonus in September, and in the next period I hope there will be a further reduction. I gave the Committee an assurance that as soon as there is an effective reduction it shall go, not to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but in reducing these charges.

Mr. ROBERTS: That goes some way to re-assure me, because undoubtedly industry is carrying very heavy burdens to-day. Any additional burden must tend to restrict its recovery and development, and also the possibility of employment. Indeed, employment and production are matters of primary consideration to us. The right hon. Gentleman has perceived the point I desired to make, and I will not trouble him at any further length. I accept the undertaking that the conditions of the postal workers will be modified, and that his proposal of the abolition of Sunday labour is to be discussed as between the representatives of these postal workers and the heads of the Post Office, and I hope thereby a reasonable and satisfactory settlement may be secured. Regretting, with every other
Member of the House, that there seems no alternative to the acceptance of these increased charges, I sincerely hope the Tight hon. Gentleman may very soon be surrounded by such conditions of prosperity as will allow him to reduce these and other charges in order to give the greatest possible stimulus to the trade and prosperity of the country.

6.0 P.M.

Sir C. OMAN: The Postmaster-General has defined a bureaucrat as a high-minded person who gives the public what they do not want. The right hon. Gentleman is a high-minded man, and he is giving the public what they do not want, at a very much enhanced price, and with a very much worse service. He is, therefore, a bureaucrat, and we will for the remainder of this Session consider him a bureaucrat. I will now prove that he is not a business man. He says: "I have raised the salaries of my servants to three times what they were five years ago. I am making a loss. Therefore, what policy shall I adopt? I will at once raise the price of the commodities I am offering to my clients. I will give my clients a much worse service, and I will charge them a lot more for it. They shall pay a good deal more for every article they purchase from me." Is that business? Would anyone define that as the conduct of a business man? If we follow those lines this will not be a land for heroes to live in, but a land where bankrupts will live very soon.
The right hon. Gentleman has had the face to come before us and explain to us that whereas the servants of the Post Office were receiving £15,000,000 on 1st April, 1914, they are now receiving £45,000,000, or three times as much. He justified himself by pointing out that the whole rise was on account of war bonus, war bonus distributed with such great liberality that (as I extracted from him by a question yesterday) whereas 52 high officials of the Post Office were receiving over £800 a year in 1914, some 688 are receiving that salary now, or twelve times as many as in 1914. You have subsidised the Post Office servants and you have subsidised the servants of other Government Departments so that they may not feel the pinch of the War which has fallen on all of us of the middle classes. Bonus after bonus has been given, with the result that the total sum paid in the Post Office is three times what it was
in 1915. Though we of the professional classes have received no bonus, you are taking our hard-earned money—all the millions we are paying in Income Tax—and you are giving it to these good gentlemen, the higher classes in the Post Office, as well as the lower classes, to keep them from feeling all the wear and tear and suffering of the War.
The right hon. Gentleman says that, compared with people in other industries, the Post Office servants did not do so well in the earlier period, and that they only got their extra money later. Cannot he put himself in the position of those members of the general public who have received no bonus at all, people who are not like miners, or the members of other associations, who exploit their country, and who are profiteers for the benefit of themselves. I call every man a profiteer who has made himself richer by this War. The man who has improved his position over other men by the results of this War, whether he be a miner, a ship owner or a public servant, is a profiteer, and I throw the name in their faces. I am ready to withdraw if that is too much to say. Can you dare to tell us that the word of the Minister who enabled these overpaid gentlemen by means of their series of fat bonuses to, escape the pinch that has fallen on the class which I represent, which has received no bonus, must be held sacred? Can you ask us to regard the promise of such a Minister as worth anything against the need of the country?
The need of the country at the moment is economy. Does not the Government know it? What about the result of the by-election which has just taken place? Do they not see that unless they show a real desire for economy we of the Coalition are now in a parlous state? Economy is what we want, and yet the right hon. Gentleman comes down to justify the continuation of treble salaries to a very large body of public servants. The hon. Gentleman claimed that his office was popular. Is that so? The postman we all love. For many years he received our Christmas half-crown and our blessing. But do we love the gentleman at the General Post Office who sends us a letter saying: "We have received your complaint and it will receive notice"? After which we hear nothing more. I do not know that I love the young lady at the telephone who tells me
that the line is engaged when I know that it is not. I do not love the gentleman who sits adding up private figures of his own while a line of seven or eight people wishing to get postal orders remain under his nose. I do not love the young ladies who conduct a lively dialogue at the back of the post office counter while a queue of people wait for stamps. I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that his followers are not so loved as he thinks. We all love the postman, but is the post office clerk really loved? Look at your "Punch." The idea that we are lovers of Post Office officialdom falls somewhat flat with me.
The almost superhuman wisdom of the high officials of the Post Office has been preached to us for centuries. It was preached to Rowland Hill when he said that the penny post would pay. A long memorandum, written by the heads of the Post Office, tried to prove that it would be the financial ruin of England. When the halfpenny postcard was introduced in 1871 there were tremendous protests from the Post Office officials. They said that nobody would write letters, that the loss on the general revenue would be enormous, and that the Post Office would soon not be a paying concern but a losing concern. Was that justified? The halfpenny postcard established itself as one of the greatest factors in English life. The right hon. Gentleman pleads for paying these people at the Post Office high salaries because he says that if they were in business they would be making from £9,000 to £10,000 a year. They are all such geniuses! I have some doubt about geniuses. There is nothing I distrust more than the man who believes himself a wasted genius. Considered as a public servant he is likely to become a snare and a nuisance. As to the idea that Government servants should be rewarded on the same scale as those who take the risk of business, well—"that way madness lies." Do you wish to have adventurers coming into the public service in order to make fortunes out of it? If you raise salaries to heights that vie with the salaries of business men, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to wish to do, we all know what it will lead to. In the Post Office the policy ought to be that increased service, good service, and honest
service is better than monopoly; monopoly doing as little as it can and taking as much as it can.
Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say about overhead charges, it is my belief that it is the number that pays. With respect to the question of the penny postage, I maintain that with such an outburst of correspondence as there was after the War there need not have been any deficit if only the war bonus had been kept down, and the idea of the Post Office that the keeping on of the penny post would mean a deficit is as ill-founded as was the old officials' opinion in the days of Rowland Hill, when they said that the penny post would bring financial ruin to the Post Office. With the present rates, is there anybody who cannot say that he is writing infinitely less letters than in 1913? I protest against the whole line of argument adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, and I must support a reduction of the Vote on the ground that the general policy of the Post Office be disapproved.

Mr. GILBERT: I rise as a London Member in order to point out to the Postmaster-General that the proposed increases are extremely unpopular so far as London constituencies are concerned. I represent a constituency which contains a great many people who are interested in the printing trade. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the printing trade is a very large industry in London, and the people connected with that trade are very deeply concerned as to whether the increased charges will greatly reduce the number of letters, circulars, and postcards which are going to be sent through the post and will, therefore, reduce the amount of printing required, and throw a good many men out of employment. In answer to a question put by the hon. Member for Keighley a few days ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that the commercial account for the year 1920–21 would show in round figures a surplus of £900,000 on postal service, a deficit of £4,000,000 on telegrams, and a deficit of £4,200,000 on telephones. In reply to some supplementary questions as to why he was increasing postage when the postage account showed profit, he said that he had to treat the account as a whole, and that the aim of the Government was to make the accounts balance. It must be extremely bad policy, after giving figures like those, which showed that even with
the present postage rates there is no loss, but nearly £1,000,000 profit on the postal service, that he should propose to increase the charges on postal account, presumably in order to make up the deficit on telegrams and telephones. I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he was very much against subsidies. It seems to me that this is a way of paying a subsidy to the telephone customers and the telegram customers, and that the postal customers have every right to protest against their charges being put up because another part of the Department is not paying.
I have been asked specially to put before the House, as the result of a meeting of London Members which was held last night, the effect of these increased postal charges on local elections in London. In London we have a great number of local elections, county council, borough council, and guardians elections, in about 28 constituencies, with a considerable number of wards. In local elections there is no free postage. The recent electoral reform has had the effect of greatly increasing the number of local electors, and the effect of this increase in postal charges will be that in a ward or constituency with the same number of electors as in 1914 the postal charges will be doubled. Owing to the fact, however, that every electoral district and every electoral ward contains three times the number of electors, there will be an increased cost for postage of about three times the cost before the War. Not only that, but in pre-War times candidates could send 2 ounces of printed matter for ½d. Under the proposed new rates they will only be able to send I ounce of printed matter for 1d. This is the cause of a great deal of extra expense, and at the moment I do not see how it is going to be met, because in all these elections the expenditure is restricted, and if the charge for delivering election addresses and poll cards is increased in the way proposed there will be very little margin of expenditure in other directions left to candidates.
The right hon. Member for Norwich asked what was the alternative of those who criticise the Post Office. On this and on another matter, as to which I have received a strong appeal from agents of friendly societies who send out a great many circulars to branches in various dis-
tricts, my remedy is that we might have in this country what Germany had for years before the War, what is called a local post. Where you have a number of letters—and the same rules apply to advertisement circulars and tradesmen's circulars—which are going to be delivered within local districts it seems unfair that we should charge the same rates of postage as are charged on circulars, postcards, or letters which are sent hundreds of miles. I would suggest that the Post-master-General should consider, seriously, from the point of view of meeting the complaints about election literature, and the circulars of friendly societies and other societies who send large numbers of circulars, and also as to advertisement circulars, whether a local postage rate should not be given in order that that kind of trade should not suffer, as it will under the new rates.
We have been told about the cost of postage in foreign countries. I asked the Postmaster-General on the 31st May what the postal rate was from America and whether the American Government proposed to increase it. The answer was that the postal rate for letters from America to this country was 2 cents, and in reply to a supplementary question I was told that there was no information as to whether that charge was going to be increased. According to the best information which I have been able to obtain, there is no proposal before the American Government to increase postal rates to this country. Everybody in business connected with the commercial life of London knows what efforts American merchants and manufacturers are making to capture British trade, and it is going to have a bad effect on our foreign trade if the American post office is not going to increase their charges and we are going: to increase ours.
Some weeks ago I asked the Postmaster-General a question in reference to circulars from bulb merchants in Holland. Thousands of circulars of Dutch bulb growers are sent from Holland to this country. This year, I presume, owing to the benefit of the German exchange to Holland, those circulars were sent into Germany and posted from Germany to this country with German stamps. My hon. Friend (Mr. Pease) said that he was quite aware of it, but that the Government had no option in the matter because the letters were sent under the
International Postal Regulations and our Post Office had to deliver them. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment to-day showed a circular which he said came from Belgium. If these postal rates are going to be imposed, you will have a great deal of printing and advertisement circulars sent to these countries and posted from them to this country. While our own postage rates are very high, people who want to send out postcards or even letters can send to foreign countries and get delivery to this country at a very much cheaper rate of postage.
I asked the Postmaster-General on the 31st of May to give the cost of postage from some of the foreign countries. The cost of postcards from Germany under the new rates is 80 pfennigs. The German exchange to-day is about 250 marks to the £. That is something like 12½ times below par. If you divide 80 by 12 you get 6½ pfennigs, which means that the cost of the German postcards to come to this country is considerably less than the 1½d. which we have to pay. Ever since post-cards were introduced in this country it was always an understood rule that the postcard rate should be half the ordinary letter rate. Under this new proposal you are going to make the postcard rate three-fourths the rate of a letter, which may weigh a great deal more than double a postcard. The foreign postal rate is not going to be increased. Under the old postal rates it was always understood that if you bought a postcard for home delivery you paid ½d., and for a foreign postcard 1d., but under the new rate the charge is going to be 1½d., whether the postcard is for delivery at home or in France, Germany, or Italy. The cost of handling in the case of the foreign postcard is greater than for the home postcards, and the Post Office have no defence for putting up the charge for the latter to that extent. I am not interested in the picture postcard trade, but the picture postcards must have brought an enormous revenue to the Post Office. The increase of postage to 1½d. on a picture postcard will cause great restriction in that trade and injure the printing trade which produces these postcards. I believe that, in answer to a deputation the other day, the Postmaster-General stated that he was quite prepared to allow picture postcards to go through for 1d. provided that they contained not more than five words. That brings them under the printed matter regulations.
As a business man with a great many years' commercial experience, it seems to me that the Post Office have certain ground expenses—the central offices and the local district offices—irrespective of what the income is, with the staff attached to the offices. They have certain ground charges which cannot be reduced. What the Post Office want to do is, having those ground charges, to make their revenue as much as they can, and if in a district office with a staff which at present has 10,000 letters a week for delivery you can provide for the delivery of 20,000 letters a week, I should have thought that it would be so much better from the point of view of the Post Office revenue. I admit that you cannot go back to pre-War conditions, but the Post Office generally made a huge mistake in increasing the charges not only of all kinds of service but of the parcel post. The minimum parcels post rate to-day is 9d., which is absurd. Take the case of poor people who have boys in the Army or Navy. It is absurd to charge them 9d. when they send a small packet to their boys. From the business point of view the Post Office has done the wrong thing. If a business firm had the Post Office they would look at it from a business point of view. They would say, "Our ground expenses are so much. Having earned those ground expenses our object will be to increase our revenue as much as ever we can beyond those ground expenses," and if the Post Office take that point of view they will earn a greater revenue and make a profit.
With regard to saving expenditure. I want to do nothing that will injure the postal servants in any way. Until comparatively recently the postal service was a badly-paid Government service, but in suburban London—I have more intimate knowledge of London than, other parts of the country—you have far too many deliveries in the day. I do not want to do anything to get men discharged or have their salaries reduced, but I believe that the Post Office service should be reorganised on a very much better basis. I live in the centre of South London. Before the War we had six postal services a day. Now we have five, and on most of those postal services there must necessarily be very few letters on a long round for a postman to deliver. I believe that the Post Office could save a great deal of money in reorganising deliveries, because
in a great many parts of London, even in the business parts, I do not believe that you want this great number of deliveries during the day. Business houses want to get their letters in the morning and deal with them then. There may be reasons for a second delivery about 10 o'clock so as to deal with Scotch and Irish letters, but business men do not want deliveries all through the day. From that point of view the Post Office could save a great deal of money, and the public would not grumble.
I might give some instances as to how the commercial public are being taxed as regards postal and other services. One applies to the small accounts of large numbers of these people. In a place such as I represent, we have a number of small manufacturers and shopkeepers. Before the War a shopkeeper received a small account. He paid it by cheque. He had to have a penny stamp on the cheque. He had to pay 1d. for the stamp to send it out. Now he has to put a 2d. stamp on the cheque, irrespective of the amount, and a 2d. stamp on the letter. That is, he has to pay 4d. where he had to pay 2d. before the War. That is only a small amount, but to the man in a small business, who has to pay many cheques in a year, it is a very great tax. I view with great concern the proposals of the Post Office. I am certain they are not popular. I am a general supporter of the Government, and I am sure they have done nothing that has so roused public ire as has this proposed increase of postal rates. I ask the Postmaster-General to reconsider the whole of these charges? If the charges are imposed, I am certain they will be bad business for the Post Office. As instructed by my colleagues, the London Members, I have ventured to put forward suggestions as to postage for local elections by the setting up of a local post, and hope he will adopt it.

Mr. WIGNALL: I want to speak in the first place on a small matter, which affects the constituency I have the honour to represent. It is a matter I have sought to have attended to without troubling the House about it, but all my efforts have been exhausted without sucess. From the Parliamentary Secretary to the Post Office and from all the officials I have received every courtesy and kindness, and I think I was able to convince
the gentlemen responsible at the General Post Office that my request was a reasonable request; but somebody else outside London, who is in charge of some country area, has said "No," and there the matter has ended. What puzzles me is this: You go to one authority and you feel that you have convinced him as to the fairness of your claim. You go away satisfied that something will be done. Then someone whom you have never seen and do not know, someone with power in a limited capacity, upsets the whole arrangement. Naturally you feel annoyed. In my constituency there is a town called Cinderford. There is in the area an old-fashioned series of collections and deliveries that has been in operation for many years since the district was a purely rural district, with the old-fashioned pos man starting off on a long round and many hours walking before him. In course of time one portion of the area known as the Ruspidge district has become a large colliery district. Pits have been sunk and a township has grown up. There is a mighty lot of difference between a purely rural area and a colliery area, but the same old rule and the same conditions exist now in dealing with this township and colliery area as existed in former years when there was only a farm-house to be found here and there. I have received resolutions on the subject from the parish councils, the urban district council, the Colliery Association, the colliery proprietors and everybody concerned, asking for a small rearrangement. The last collection in that area is about 5.30, and that raises difficulties for the colliery.

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I think the last collection at Cinderford is 8 o'clock.

Mr. WIGNALL: That is exactly what I want in this particular district. Cinderford is about a mile away from Ruspidge, and the last collection in the Ruspidge area is from 5 to 5.14. The colliery people say that that collection is too early. They ask the Postmaster-General so to rearrange the area that the collection will take place about 7 o'clock. It would not involve any more expense or the employment of any additional official. It would give business people time to deal with their letters and to get them posted in Ruspidge. That seems a small matter to occupy the time of the House or even to
occupy my time and that of the authorities. I regret having to have to take up the time of the House on the matter, but I have exhausted every other means of getting the question attended to. I have, as I said, gone to the General Post Office and received every kindness, but nothing has been done. Someone has come along and has said, "I am going to rule this roost, and you are not going to have this change." I am inclined to think that it is a personal matter between the gentlemen controlling affairs down there and the colliery people. There is nothing I have heard or seen yet which convinces me that this small change cannot be effected. I have fulfilled my obligation in carrying out the wishes of my constituency to bring the matter before the House. If a district does not get some benefit out of it, it will be a bad job.
I must say a few words on the general question under discussion. I am not concerned for the moment about the abolition of Sunday collections and deliveries. When I lived in the provinces the postman used to knock me up every Sunday morning. Since I have lived in London, the postman has been more considerate and has allowed me to rest. If we can live without a Sunday delivery in London, surely we can get along very well without it in the provinces. The only aspect of the question that appeals to me is that it affects the earning power of the postal official. It affects the postman's earnings to the extent of about 4s. 5d. a week. It affects not only the wages, but also the pensions. Four shillings and fivepence a week does not seem a lot, but it means much to families that have to depend upon small wages. Unfortunately, I had not the pleasure of listening to the new Postmaster-General's defence of his policy, for I had to pay my last tribute of respect to an old friend of 25 years standing, and I felt that that was my first duty to-day. I do not know what the Postmaster-General has said; I do not know whether he has made any concessions or promises. I would urge, however, that this question of the 4s. 5d. a week is of importance and I hope he will see his way clear to deal with the matter in a generous way. I do not want the work to be done on Sundays, but I do want the payment to be made. I say that candidly for I do not want to beat about the bush. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) says, "Hear, hear." That is
twice we have agreed to-day. We are getting nearer. I honestly and conscientiously believe the country can do without Sunday deliveries and collections. We do not want the work done and we do not want the reduction in pay. The same number of letters and parcels will have to be delivered even if you abolish the Sunday work. It will mean a few extra parcels and letters possibly for delivery on Monday morning. Probably it will be necessary for the men to work later and some arrangements will be required for a later delivery on Saturday night.
Whatever the arrangement may be, if you take that 4s. 5d. from the man's weekly wage, and see that he performs the same volume of work from Monday to Saturday as he previously performed from Monday to Monday, it would not be fair. If the men have to perform the same duties, if they have to handle the same volume of letters and parcels, there ought to be an arrangement by which money would not be deducted from their wages. It will be said you are doing it for economy, and I know you are not doing it for the sake of relieving the men of their labour, but simply in order to save money. That means in this case, as it always means, that the whole burden of your economies are going to fall upon those who can least afford to bear them. It is going to fall upon men of the wage-earning class and their families. I do not believe in running the postal service at a loss, but I am convinced there are ways and means by which the leakage could be found out and dealt with.
I was looking over the cost of running the Press service, and I find that while the cost of telegrams for commercial purposes has increased 100 per cent., the Press service has only increased 25 per cent. On one occasion it was declared that the Press service was run at a loss to the country of about £20,000 a year, and it is being run at a loss to-day. I do not know what the loss is at the moment, but it is considerable. Whether it is just that the nation should bear it, I do not know; whether we should subsidise wealthy newspapers—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Daily Herald "]—is a matter you know more about than I do, but I think the wealthy syndicates of newspapers should not have greater privileges granted to them than the ordinary and poorer sections of the community. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do not depend
upon money from Russia."] I do not know what the hon. Member is referring to. He is talking about Russia; I am talking about the General Post Office in St. Martin's-le-Grand, and this House of Commons. In that Department to which I was referring you are bearing one of your biggest losses, and it is a continuous loss, a running loss which you are meeting with, every day of your existence. The question is whether you ought to allow that loss to continue or whether you should not take steps to remedy it. I do not believe in privileges being given to the people who can best afford to pay. You are taking 4s. 5d. a week off the wages of the poor postman, and giving to the big Press Association and to the rich newspapers concessions and privileges which are not given to other people. I am glad to have an opportunity of presenting my view on these important matters, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the particular case I have brought before him in the generous and kindly spirit in which I have submitted it to him.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad to hear that the Postmaster-General has made a concession regarding foreign printed matter. I am also glad to hear he intends to adhere to the suspension of Sunday letters. I was afraid he might be induced to give way on that point, because I understood him to say he intended to consult some of the leaders of the postal service, and as the hon. Member who has just sat down says, the postal service wants to get the money though, according to him, they do not want the work. That is not confined to the postal service. The miners have the same views upon that matter, and so also have many other people. For my own part, although I am always in the country on Sunday, and I feel it a very great convenience to receive letters on Sunday, I shall be very willing to submit to the inconvenience of not receiving letters provided we have any reduction in the cost of the Post Office. It is to a reduction of expenses we have to look, in order to effect saving. The right hon. Gentleman has very clearly and frankly put before the Committee the actual position which is very serious. Speaking in round figures the expense, which in 1914 was £27,000,000, has risen to the stupendous amount of £70,000,000.
There has been no appreciable increase in the staff, but the wages paid to the staff have risen from £15,000,000 to £45,000,000, which is to say that where a man was receiving £2 a week in 1914 he is now receiving £6 a week. I do not think there is any justification for that. The right hon. Gentleman says there was some arrangement made in that matter. I presume he is referring to the fact that the Government agreed that all Government servants were to receive a certain war bonus, and that therefore it is not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman himself, but of the Government as a whole. No one in this House is more anxious than I am to maintain a bargain. I have never broken a bargain which I have entered into, but was there a bargain in this case? If there was such a bargain, then the Government have been very improvident. As I understand it, however, the arrangement was that there should be a war bonus, and what is the meaning of a war bonus? I never could understand how it could be suggested that one should receive some benefit simply because there was a war, but in any case the War is over, and the very addition of the word "war" to the word "bonus" surely meant that when the War was over the bonus was to cease. The word "bonus" does not mean an increase of salary, but something given for a time, and if I am right in these definitions, the first thing the Government should do is reduce these war bonuses.
There is a deficiency at the present moment of something like £3,500,000, or, at any rate, that is the estimated deficiency at the end of the year. There has been no increase in staff; the wages before the War amounted in round figures to £15,000,000, and suppose you double that, it would mean £30,000,000. It has actually increased to £46,000,000, and the difference between £30,000,000 and 46,000,000, namely, £16,000,000, would make up the deficit and give a profit to the community. Surely something in that direction could be done. There are a large number of people in this country who have received no increase in the shape of bonus during or since the War, but have had heavy additional burdens placed upon them. Why should you single out a particular class and say they are not to suffer the inconveniences which all others suffered from the dread-
ful War, and not only that, but they are to receive additional sums of money, enabling them to feel there never was such a thing as a war, and further that, to put them in that better position, people are to pay who have received nothing whatever? The right hon. Gentleman repeated a fallacy which I have heard very often from the Front Bench, namely, that you must get the best brains in the country, and that if you do not pay high salaries you will not get the best brains. I do not want to say a word in disparagement of the Civil Service, especially of the old Civil Service. I do not think there ever was a better Civil Service in the world, but were they all supermen and geniuses? I am not at all sure that they were. They were honest, capable, straightforward Englishmen, but not people who could make enormous fortunes by simply walking out of the Post Office, or whatever other office they were engaged in, to some other place. Why does a man accept a moderate permanent salary? For two reasons. One is that it is permanent, and he is relieved from any anxiety about his affairs. He is relieved from the fear that if he happens to make a bad bargain all his profits will be gone. Another reason is that probably if he went into business he would not make anything, and therefore you must not confuse with such men the few very clever people who are really able to command very large salaries. I venture to say to the Government that they need not be afraid of losing the sort of men they want in the Civil Service—ordinary upright, straightforward, honest men.
This is an occasion upon which we might point out to the Government that they must begin seriously and earnestly to economise. You cannot economise unless you begin to reduce expenditure, and in the Civil Service the only way you can economise is either by abolishing offices or by reducing the expenses upon them. I am not suggesting that the Post Office should be abolished, but there are other offices which might be abolished. We must be fair, but while I, as much as anyone else, would like to give everybody a high wage, we have not got the money to do it, and we have to face that fact and make people understand it.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. JAMES M. M. ERSKINE: Having only taken my seat to-day rise
with great diffidence to oppose the increase in the postal rates, more especially with reference to postcards. I have had twenty or thirty letters to-day from various societies, and I think it is only fair that I should give the House a sample of them. I certainly will not detain the House more than two or three minutes, as I feel I ought not really to have risen at all to-day, being such a very new Member. The Incorporated Free and Open Church Association, Church House, Dean's Yard, London, S.W., write as follows:
I am directed by the Council to ask if you will use your best endeavour to frustrate the proposed increase in postal rates which if carried out would be an almost insuperable burden to our Association and kindred Societies who are working for the good of the Church. We have great difficulty in financing our way as it is, owing to the enormous increase in the cost of printing, stationery and office rent, and the new charges for postage would be about the last straw, which we trust will not be added to our other burdens.
I will read only one more:
Church House, Dean's Yard, Westminster. Church Reform League. May I ask for your strenuous end eavour to defeat the proposed increase of postal rates? We are one of fifty religious societies established in this House. We are all suffering from diminished contributions, and are finding it difficult to maintain our work, however necessary, or excellent our operations may be. The threatened increase of postal charges will bring upon many of us such an added burden that it may well ruin some most excellent Societies, and make it impossible for them to carry on.
I have thirty or forty letters in a similar strain. It seems to me that the burden is intolerable on our poor people. This extra ½d. is a very heavy and serious tax on the poor. The postcard now has risen 300 per cent. It is altogether against the interests of the Post Office itself, because, if it makes its goods so dear, surely it will sell less of them. At least, that is the way I find it in business, and I fancy the Post Office will find the same.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: When, the other day, in answer to a question by an hon. Member opposite, figures were given showing that we were paying in salaries and bonus three times the amount of 1913–14, it seemed to me a figure which should give us pause and make us look very carefully into the causes of and reasons for the increase. In doing so, we find from figures given that out of the total increase
in remuneration of £30,000,000 certainly £28,000,000 is in war bonus. I was wondering where the other £2,000,000 came in. I thought it must necessarily be that there had been an increase of staff. Apparently, that is not so. The staff is less than it was before the War. Therefore, if it is not an increase of staff, it must be due to what is called the normal increase on merit advances. In the ordinary way in a business concern the merit advances rectify themselves. As men die out boys are taken on, and so the general scale of salary remains the same. We all know, in the early periods of the increased cost of living, that merit advances were given which were not really merit advances, but had that sympathetic element, only doing something to help meet the increased cost of living which was not fully reflected in the war bonus then given. It was done by many local authorities, and we must not, in considering this, consider that the staff are getting only a war bonus at the present time amounting to an increase of 160 per cent. There is an extra £2,000,000 in advances given in some way or other on the recommendations of the heads of departments. Therefore, we get the astounding fact that whereas we are accustomed to a double cost, it is somewhat difficult to swallow a treble cost, with the currency so much under proof as it is at the present time.
As the Postmaster-General rightly said, the whole question here, as far as one can see, is of the remuneration of the staff. The only way in which great economies can be obtained is by seeing that this amount of three times the pre-War remuneration is brought down to something a little more commensurate with the cost of living. The Post Office propose to meet the deficit by increasing the rate. Is there not another alternative? Have they thoroughly considered the alternative of increasing facilities instead of increasing the rate? I was much interested the other day in reading a circular prepared by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Newbould) in regard to the picture palace industry. In that circular the hon. Member pointed out that the picture palaces, owing to increased costs and other causes, were not in such a state of financial prosperity as they had been in the past, and that the only way they saw of getting back their prosperity was
by decreasing the charges to the public and so getting more of the public to come in. If that is the way business men would act in regard to their own industry, is it not possible that it might be worthy of consideration by the Post Office? I wish to support what one of the London Members said a few moments ago in making an appeal for cheap local posts. There might be a post of letters which, for instance, could be delivered after the first sorting, or letters could be delivered to the Post Office in bulk, arranged in streets, so that there would be no trouble or difficulty for the postal officials or the postmen in sorting and delivery. That business would bring in revenue, because there are a great many thousands of people who employ labour to deliver in the locality rather than spending money in the post. If there were a reduced local post the money now spent in delivery might come into the revenue.
Again, there is the question of more efficiency in administration. We have all heard stories of curious things done by various officials in the Telephone Department. I do not like to give a personal instance, but it will be amusing if it were not so sad. I will give one instance of what happened to me the other day when I was getting into a house in town. I signed a new contract for a telephone, and wrote to the proper authority asking him to give me a new machine, as the one at present there had been practically destroyed owing to the house being empty, and I asked him also to put in an extension bell to the basement. Quite promptly a gentleman arrived, fixed a sort of little bivouac on the pavement outside, and there made investigations during most of the morning. At the end of the morning inquiries were made as to what he was doing, and he said he was going to put in a new line. He was told that a new line was not required and that all that was needed was an instrument and an extension bell. He produced his sheet, and said his instructions were to put in a new line. On being told that the line was there already he rang up his superior officer. The superior officer said, "You must do what is on your day sheet." If the lady at that end had not been very persistent he would have done it. She objected very strongly to this palpable waste, and eventually somebody was got on the telephone, and the man told to go home.
He went back, saying that he had wasted all his morning. Somebody else came the next day to see what wanted doing. A third gentleman arrived on another day, and in a very short time, very efficiently and courteously, he did the little job which should have been done on the first morning when the first man came. That is an instance in the experience of all of us.
Another method of dealing with, this deficiency is the abolition of unremunerative services. One that has been suggested is less deliveries, and I presume that would carry with it less collections from the post boxes. I think that could be very easily done without adding to the weight of any postman's burden and making it more than he could carry. It would certainly be a relief to large numbers of us who receive letters at all times of the day. As private individuals and as business men we prefer receiving letters at stated intervals, and at intervals as far apart as possible; then one lot can be got out of the way before another lot comes along. The Post Office are taking the first step in the right direction in the abolition of the Sunday post, which, so far as I can make out, nobody wants, except some of the postmen. This is the first real economy which the Postmaster-General has proposed. It has already been met by protests, both from hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House and from postal workers in various parts of the country. Already I have received two letters from the Union of Postal Workers in different parts of my constituency, protesting against the abolition of this Sunday labour on the ground that it will reduce their remuneration.
We must realise that we cannot economise without reducing somebody or affecting somebody. We shall do very well to see that the path of the economist who really sets out to practise the doctrine that he preaches will not be the path of popularity. When we once start really and effectively economising we shall find that the cry of the overtaxed, which has been so recently voiced, will be drowned by the clamour of those who find that their remuneration is reduced or their employment taken away. When the real struggle for economy comes, as it must do, it will not be a popular cry, and we shall have to use the very greatest self-restraint and moral courage as econo-
mists to stand up against the pressure that will be put upon us by innumerable people. There will be a far greater number of voices against us then than of those who advocate the cause of economy. We are all willing and able to give lip service to the cause of economy. We all want to economise at somebody else's expense and at the expense of someone else's pet theory. We do not want to do it at our own expense and at the expense of our pet theory. In domestic life you will find both partners absolutely united that economy is necessary. The difference of opinion comes in as to whether it is done at the tobacconist's or at the hat shop. In the case of the Post Office and of all other Government Departments, whatever steps are taken in the direction of the reduction of expenditure will cause some suffering to individuals and good causes, but unless this is done we come to such a financial catastrophe that there is a suffering to all individuals and all good causes, and if that is so, it is then the very poorest and the weakest who will feel it most.

Mr. BOWERMAN: I desire to emphasise a point which has been raised already in regard to the serious effect which these increases in the postal rates will have, if eventually agreed upon, so far as the printing trade is concerned. A day or so ago the Postmaster-General was good enough to receive a deputation from a thoroughly representative body representing the whole of the printing trade of this country, and I want to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the speakers who addressed him on that occasion presented a very strong case indeed against these proposed increases. The Postmaster-General turned a deaf ear to everything that was said, and he takes his stand upon the judgment of his permanent officials The deputation pointed out that the effect of these increased rates must necessarily be to restrict printing, and they gave him chapter and verse where that had already taken place in anticipation of the increased rates. Is this a time to put men out of work, especially after yesterday's proceedings? The Postmaster-General may take it that that is going to be one of the first effects of these increased rates so far as the printing trade goes. The trade is in a bad condition now, and in London in one branch of the trade over 1,000 men out of 10,000 are unemployed,
yet we are going to restrict printing further. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he ought to consider representations made to him by business men who have spent all their lives in the printing trade.
Modern statesmanship seems to consist of passing a Measure one year, in spite of the strength of the arguments used in opposition to it, and then the following year admitting that the legislation was wrong and having to retrace their steps. I suggest that if you insist on these rates being increased you are going to damage the printing trade, and you are not going to get the revenue that your officers claim that you will, and why should you inflict an injury upon a trade when you are not going to obtain the revenue that you require? I suppose the right hon. Gentleman's view is that if his permanent officials mislead him, not intentionally, then they are to bear the brunt of it, and I suppose that means promotion to another place for the right hon. Gentleman. I want the Postmaster-General to listen to the advice of business men and look about for some other way of dealing with this question. Although I had not the pleasure of hearing the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I understand that an Advisory Committee has been set up. May I suggest that he should be good enough to hold up these proposed increases until that Advisory Committee has inquired and reported? If he will do that, it may only be a matter of two or three months, he certainly will give great satisfaction to the printing trade, and probably in other directions, and I would press that point upon him, that he should not impose these increased rates until the Committee he has suggested has had time to consider them.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If there is to be any real chance of economy in the Post Office and we are not to have year after year further burdens on the public, we have got to reduce both the staff and its remuneration. That is the only way you can do it. The increases of cost of the Post Office services, compared with what they were before the War, are greater than in any other Department and in any other class of workers in the State. I entirely support the point of view taken this afternoon by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman). Here you have at the far end of the Civil Ser-
vice a large number of well-paid officials, who are having high war bonuses still paid them, whereas university professors, clergy, doctors, all the middle classes, are overtaxed at this present moment and have no war bonus at all, and the whole question has got to be reconsidered. I quite agree that at the bottom end of the scale you have got to give a permanent wage on a different basis from that which obtained before the War, but here, under the system which the Government have gone in for, you have increased your permanent charges and your pension charges extravagantly. As to reduction of staff and expenditure, the first thing we want to know quite clearly this afternoon is what exactly is the subsidy which the State and the taxpayer are paying for Press telegrams. The telegraph services of the country are being run at a loss of £4,000,000 a year, and if that figure is correct, it is the telegraphs that ought to be bearing the burden, and not the Post Office.
Personally, I shall go into the Lobby against the Government Vote on the post-card business alone. I believe the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion of charging 1½d. for the written postcard is absolutely fantastic, and when his officials estimate that as a result of that charge he is only going to lose 10 per cent. of his written postcards, I am quite sure they are as mistaken as they usually have been. In this connection I hope the public realise that the picture postcard which is not written on is to continue to go at the 1d. rate, five words being allowed. That means that you will really lose practically the whole of your written postcard traffic, and, so far from getting the extra £1,000,000 which you expect, you will probably make a loss. It comes back to this, that what is wanted row in the Post Office service of this country is new blood at St. Martin's-le-Grand. You hear it everywhere, and when the right hon. Gentleman tells us that one of his higher officials has got a job offered him outside at £3,000 a year, I say, "For goodness' sake, let him go, and get some new blood into the central staff at St. Martin's-le-Grand."
I would like to refer for the moment to the telegraph messenger boys. I happen to live in London close to one of the principal post offices, and the swarm of telegraph boys in the street is something amazing. They amble about and lead very pleasant and happy lives, in
twos and threes, and I never see one on a bicycle. I asked a question in this House as to how many there were, and there are 65. I further asked, as it is a district in which nearly every house has a telephone, what steps have been taken to secure that telegrams were delivered by telephone. No real effort has been made by the Post Office to reduce the expense, of delivery of telegrams, and they keep at one office 65 ambulating telegraph boys, when a third of which number on bicycles would do the work much more cheaply, much better, and much more quickly. The whole staffing of the Post Office wants going into from top to bottom, and I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to see that we do not attempt, now we are a poor country, to carry on on the sort of lavish scale we did before the War when we were a rich country. We are grossly overtaxed and overburdened, we are no longer the rich country that we were, and we have got to cut our coat according to our cloth. We have got to see that we have an adequate postal service, but not an extravagant one, and I maintain that at the present moment it is extravagantly run.
In regard to internal printed matter, the right hon. Gentleman estimates a reduction of 25 per cent. He said: "I am estimating for a reduction, by my present increase, of 25 per cent. on the internal printed matter circulated." Is not that a very serious figure, and is it not a confession that you are going to reduce the amount of trade circulars and the like circulating in this country? You are going to lose, I believe, £5,000,000 worth of trade, if not more, in order to get an increased revenue of £1,000,000. I am sure the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman of the estimated reduction is quite sufficient to justify us opposing that change. I quite agree that the Post Office accounts have got to be made to balance, but let the loss that is at present being made by the telegraphs and telephones lie upon them and not upon the postal services. They are the last services that ought to be touched, and if it is true that the Press of this country is getting valuable services at the taxpayers' expense, that ought to stop. The Post Office is supervised and super-supervised until you can get no decent service at all. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take everything
he is told by his senior officials at St. Martin's-le-Grand for granted, and that he will look into the details all through, with a view to securing economies by reducing the numbers and the expense of the staff and introducing labour-saving machinery.

Mr. R. McNEILL: With the general principles which my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) has just laid down, I am entirely in agreement. I have no doubt he is quite right that there might be considerable saving in administration in some of the ways he mentioned. But I must say I thought he singled out a particularly bad case upon which to ground the vote that he intends to give. I do not share his feeling at all in regard to the effect of the charge of 1½d. for postcards. If he is right—and he may be—it is a thing upon which everyone without statistics to go upon may find it difficult to form an opinion—if it is true—if the effect of this sort of thing is what he states—it only shows what an enormous number of unnecessary postcards must be written. What will be the effect of charging 1½d postage for a postcard? Unless they are unnecessary postcards, they will be either written and stamped with 1½d. or, what probably will happen, will be that the people will say that it costs very little more to send a letter, consequently, instead of sending a postcard for 1½d., they will write a letter and put a 2d. stamp on it. Whichever way it comes about there will not be that serious loss of revenue that my hon. Friend behind me anticipates.
I was very interested in what the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bowerman) said in regard to printed matter. Here, again, I do not profess to have anything in the nature of expert knowledge, and I know my right hon. Friend has. I must, however, say I was surprised at what he said. I myself should not have thought what he said was true, but apparently it has been allowed by the Postmaster-General that the falling off may be 25 per cent. All I can say is—and my experience must be a common one, and personally I am not engaged in trade or commerce—I fill my waste-paper basket most days with these circulars. A great many of them seem to be very expensively got up. They are recklessly sent about the country. One very frequently gets three or four dupli-
cates either by the same post or at an interval of a post or two. These circulars must cost a good deal of money because they are printed on expensive paper, the printing is high-class, and often they are illustrated. They are spread broadcast by the hundred thousand. I myself can never recall an instance of giving an order to anybody through the influence of one of these circulars, and I very seldom come across anybody who does. Presumably, however, those who send them out know their business, for strange and incredible as it may seem, I suppose the sending about of these circulars whole-sale does result in trade orders being given. Anyhow, we must assume that. That being so, I cannot imagine that these circulars are going in large numbers to be stopped because of the small addition to the postage. If so, it must be extraordinarily nicely calculated by the people who send them out as to what is the exact trade value of sending out, say, 100,000 circulars. I must, therefore, say that I am sceptical as to whether this increase will have that very damaging result to the printing trade, although, as I say, the right hon. Gentleman is an expert and I am not. I listened to what he said with great deference, at the same time, I cannot escape scepticism as to whether his pessimism will turn out to be justified.
A great deal of criticism, it appears to me, which has been directed against these charges, has been very speculative. We had this afternoon an interesting speech from an hon. Member who has just taken his seat. If I may, without presumption, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member upon the distinction of having entered the House and made a speech the same day—a characteristic speech, and a rare occurrence. What I mean by characteristic is this: we have not yet learnt to speak of anything characteristic about himself, but of the party—if it is a party—to which he belongs. I remember a short time ago noticing with great interest the first vote given in this House by the hon. Member for Dover, who is also a distinguished member of the same party. The first vote given by that hon. Member was in favour of adding enormously to the public expenditure. If the vote he gave in the Lobby on the first occasion had prevailed, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would have meant
the expenditure of anything from £50,000,000 to £100,000,000.
Therefore, it was very characteristic that another hon. Member (Mr. James. Erskine) connected with the party to which I have referred should come into this House and lose no time whatever—I do not know how he" is going to vote—in getting up and making a speech against a proposal the object of which is to make one of our great Services self-supporting. The hon. Gentleman told us that he has had 30 or 40 letters. I daresay great many of us have had letters. One of them he was good enough to read to the House. These letters have already convinced the hon. Member that the extra ½d. on the postcard would be a very heavy tax upon people who write postcards, and consequently he is in favour of removing that tax from the people who write postcards to the general taxpayer.

Mr. ERSKINE: My point was that if the Post Office made proper economies, that tax of the extra ½d. on the postcard would not be necessary.

Mr. McNEILL: I do not think that I really do any injustice to the hon. Member, because it is a very easy thing to say, especially if you do not consider it your duty to go on to show how it can be done, that you would meet up this deficiency in some other way. That is the practical effect of what the right hon. Gentleman said—whatever he intended. The direct effect of his speech if it was given effect to by the policy of the Government would be to remove the tax from the writer of the postcard to the general tax-payer, and, then, of course, leave the hon. Member to devise means by which the Government—if they were displaced by a Government of the Anti-waste party—could make good the deficiency. At all events, the first step he has taken has been in that direction. I am rather inclined to anticipate future speeches of the hon. Gentleman, though the last thing I should desire to do would be in any way to misrepresent him. He has given this much insight into his character already; he is a very soft-hearted man. He has been moved by the pathos of these 40 letters to make a speech in the direction which I have already indicated. I anticipate that the hon. Member will thereby prove himself a very characteristic member of the Anti-waste party, will always
be having his heart wrung by appeals from his constituents and from other sources. Time after time he will get up in this House and make the most eloquent speeches on economy, denounce the extravagance of the Government, and end up by making a passionate appeal for profuse expenditure for the benefit of some particular class from whom he has had 40 or more letters. That is, if I may say so, intensely characteristic. I mention it in passing because while it appears to me to be characteristic of that particular party it is really very characteristic of us all.
I am not here to blame the hon. Member more than anybody else, because these postal charges, as we all know, created a great outcry in the country when proposed. Everybody has been denouncing them. It is characteristic in this world that although, on whatever Benches we sit, and very desirous—and sincerely so—that there should be a reduction of expenditure and no extravagance on the port of the Government, that whenever a proposal is made—I do not care by what Department—in the direction of reducing expenditure and making that Department pay its way, whatever it may be, the outcry is always against the particular way in which it is proposed to do it. There are always plenty of critics, whether in this House or in the Press, who are ready to say, "Oh, that is the one way in which you should not do this; do it in some other way." I myself have not got the knowledge to take a special line, but I say that if a great Department like the Post Office, with civil servants in it who have been eulogised by a number of Members this afternoon who have been brought in contact with them, cannot even make a proposal in its administration, a sensible proposal, for paying its way, or for reducing its expenditure, then I certainly would be hopeless of it being done at all. I do not believe that hon. Members outside the Government in this House, or the gentlemen in Fleet Street who sit in their offices and write articles, are a bit more likely than the skilled servants of the Post Office to devise the proper means for reducing expenditure.
There is one point, and one point only, upon which I should like to join the critics of the Postmaster-General. A Labour Member, whom I do not see in his place at the moment, made an interesting
speech a little time ago in which he said, and with a great deal of force, that in the case of those who are to be damaged—because somebody must be damaged—you cannot reduce expenditure without somebody suffering—it was unfair that the heavier loss should fall upon those less able to bear it. With that I agree. Now as regards the giving up of Sunday deliveries. I am entirely in favour of it. It is right in principle. It is desirable from all points of view; from that of economy and from the point of view of Sunday labour. But I do think that it is rather hard that the whole loss of wages should fall upon those who have the smallest wage. I do not want now to go into the larger question of the war bonus, but I think that, considering that the higher-paid grades are still in receipt of war bonus which has been very fairly and rightly criticised from many points of view, there is room to take something out of their pockets, instead of letting it all come out of the pockets of the small-wage man, who will lose proportionately in their wages by losing the Sunday work. I do think that my right hon. Friend should insist that they shall not have the whole lot put upon them. It is a serious thing for a great many who find it very difficult now to make ends meet, although, of course, they do not like Sunday labour for itself. They are facing with great anxiety the loss of the income they will suffer when they are no longer employed upon Sunday. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, ought to insist that the loss is graded upwards to the higher grades, and that the people for whom I speak should be relieved from, at any rate, some portion, and I should say, a very large portion, of the loss that they are like to suffer. Except from that point of view I am inclined to join in the approval which has been expressed of the statement made by the Postmaster-General, which was not only a very lucid one, but also one of a very convincing character.

Sir F. YOUNG: I wish to join with those who have expressed great concern as regards the effect of the Postmaster-General's proposal, and I do not think he has approached the subject from the point of view which is in the mind of the public as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman has come down here this afternoon prepared with figures showing that his own Department very accurately forecasts its Estimates as regards what new
charges will bring in. He has shown that the increases put on at different periods during the War have realised almost to a pound the Estimates of the Department. I think he has chosen a very bad period upon which to base his calculations, because that was a period when money was never more plentiful. It did not matter during that period what was charged, because the people spent more than they ever did before. Therefore that is no guide for us now when money is very scarce and people have all got their eyes turned in economical directions both privately and otherwise.
I think we have every reason for saying that these charges will not realise the results which have been suggested. I agree with those who have expressed the opinion that the extra revenue required to make the balance equal will not be forthcoming. I think the House is unanimously agreed on the point that it is necessary that the Post Office should be self-supporting. The Government say that their method of bringing about this desirable end is to increase their charges. Other Speakers say the best method is to reduce the expenses, and I am in accord with those who take the latter view. The Postmaster-General has made an excellent speech in which he has put the position most clear and most lucidly before us, but when the expenditure upon the Post Office has risen from £27,000,000 to £70,000,000 that surely suggests considerable possibilities of reduction. When we recollect that the Treasury has recently sent out a circular to every Department inviting them to reduce their expenditure by at least 20 per cent. we expected that this Department of the Post Office would have been able to show a reduction.
I agree with hon. Members who have raised the question of the war bonus. It is time not only in reference to the Post Office, but in regard to the services generally that the whole question of the war bonus should be reviewed, and we should bring the costs in the shape of salaries down to a more reasonable basis. I think we are all agreed that the Post Office should balance its accounts, but it is equally right that private individuals should be able to balance their accounts. They are struggling against great difficulties, and here is another tax on their limited resources. The Government are
now called upon to review the war bonus right through the service, and therefore it is feasible to bring about a sufficient saving in the Post Office to make up for the deficit indicated in the Postmaster-General's speech. When that is done, those employed in the Post Office will be no worse off than millions of their fellow countrymen who inevitably have to face the commercial and industrial stagnation in this country which, although it may improve, is likely to be with us for some considerable time.
A large number of our people during the War have had no bonus to help them during the last five or six years. Many of our industries have had increased wages and bonus, but they are now being brought up against the competition of the world, and to-day they are faced with serious reductions in their wages. The same experience has to come home to those who have received war bonus in the Civil Service. I think it is quite right to say that the reduction should operate less drastically on those at the bottom rungs of the ladder. We all realise that they offer the least scope for reduction, but taking all the grades in the Civil Service there must be some measure of reduction of the war bonus so as to enable the affairs of this country to be carried on more economically and to bring these gentlemen into a position more in conformity with the hard and difficult position in which the rest of the community find themselves.

Sir G. ROWLAND BLADES: With regard to the increased charge on picture postcards, the Postmaster-General said that he did not believe it would restore this business to Germany, as if so he would not have proceeded with the additional rate. He said he felt sure that the concession of five written words for a penny would fully meet the case. May I point out that this concession was made when the postage was increased from one halfpenny to one penny, with the result that not only did a reduction of 50 per cent. in the picture postcards used in this country come about, but also a marked reduction in the production of new designs. May I ask the Postmaster-General whether if in practice he is satisfied that this important trade won from Germany is likely to be handed back to that country, whether he will reconsider the withdrawal of the increased rate?

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: It seems to me unfortunate that hon. Members have not given the one Department which does seem to be working on economical lines credit for the efforts it is making. I find it extremely difficult to defend the expenditure of many of our Government Departments, but the faults that apply to some of the other Ministries cannot be charged against the Post Office. Allegations have been made that in regard to the staff considerable economies ought to be made, in spite of the admitted fact that the Post Office staff to-day is smaller than it was before the War. Although I had very considerable misgivings as to the policy embodied in the Postmaster-General's proposals, most of my doubts were dissipated by the right hon. Gentleman's statements in moving this Vote. It may be true that another halfpenny on postcards will so reduce the numbers sent through the post as to affect the revenue, but after all if the Post Office say that this particular class of postal missive does not pay the expense of its conveyance, then there is no case for it, and no reason for opposing the increased charge. I think if people have to choose between a postcard at three halfpence and a letter at two pence the Post Office will get the advantage, because most people will send the letter.
The point relating to Press telegrams has already been raised, and I wish to emphasise and support it, especially in regard to the point made as to the deferred rate telegrams. What I have said on a previous occasion with regard to cables to the East applies equally to the telegraph service at home. The Press make use of our telegraph facilities to send all over the country a whole lot of quite useless nonsense with which they fill some of the papers, and it is not good enough that that sort of stuff should be sent about the country at the expense of the general taxpayer and the other users of the telegraph service. Therefore if the Press rates can be very severely revised it may lead to a very wholesome elimination of a good deal of the nonsense that is at present published in the newspapers. The Post-master-General has described a bureaucrat as a man who wishes to give other people something which they are not quite sure they want, but I feel that there is a tendency now to remove the bureaucrat from Whitehall to Fleet Street.
8.0 P.M.
I will not make the comment which I might have done upon the speech of the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskme). I am sure hon. Members will congratulate him at any rate upon the promptitude with which he made his maiden speech to-day. I only hope that he responded to those very excellent church organisations whose letters he has read by sending them a subscription as promptly as he read them out to the Committee. I shall be very pleased to write to him on behalf of a number of organisations with which I am acquainted. With regard to the Sunday post, I would like to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to give the Committee some indication of what is really intended in the way of Sunday evening collections. Will places like Manchester, Liverpool, Belfast and Dublin be able to post letters on Sunday night for delivery in town here possibly before noon on Monday? It is really a very much more important point, and a much more necessary facility to the public generally to get a reasonable Sunday despatch rather than a Sunday delivery. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) raised some point with regard to the delivery of telegrams, and I really thought the comments were most uncalled for. After all, if one wishes to put on a telegram a telephone number, instead of a street address, the telegram is delivered by telephone from the post office; but if, as many people prefer, they wish a telegram to be delivered in writing, the extra words required to give the full address are added, and have to be paid for accordingly. Therefore, it is at the option of the sender whether the message shall be telegraphed in writing or telephoned. As to giving every telegraph boy a bicycle, I am not at all sure that the economy effected in the number of boys employed would counterbalance the other costs.
There is one other point upon which I should like to have an answer, and it is that relating to the cost involved in election matter. I think an hon. Member for one of the London Divisions raised this point, and it is a very important point, because at the present time the limit of expenditure allowed in the case of a municipal election is £25 for the first 500 and 2d. per voter over 500. I have one or two examples of what that means. Take the city I represent. In the Exchange Ward
(the smallest ward) there are a little over 1,600 electors. That allowance works out at £34 7s. 6d. At the present ½d. rate one would spend a little over £3 in postage, and the new rate would make it over £6. There are 12,800 electors in the largest ward (Chorlton-cum-Hardy) and the present postage costs £26 14s. 6d. and will be increased to £53 9s. It is perfectly true that in a Parliamentary election every candidate can send out an address or poll card, whichever he chooses, at the free rate, but at a Parliamentary election, allowing for one circulation of literature which must be paid for, and included within the limit of 5d. per vote, the doubling of the postage rate will be a very serious thing. At the present time, if one sends out one lot of literature at ½d., it means perhaps one-tenth of the total expense allowed. Under the new rates it will be one-fifth of the 5d. that will go in postage. That is a very serious thing. In Manchester, with 335,000 electors, out of the expenditure allowed of nearly £7,000, the present postage charge is about £698. Under the new rate it will be £1,396. That should be specially provided for, either by increasing the free rate or by an Amendment of the Representation of the People Act, altering the allowance per candidate in the election. Therefore I hope my right hon. Friend will give some indication as to what is intended to be done to relieve that situation.
With regard to the Sunday post, I hope it will not be taken for granted by the Post Office that the Sunday post either in collection or delivery has gone for all time. I hope that this will be regarded as a necessary expedient in the interest of economy, and that when the national finances are restored to such a state as will permit the Post Office to restore these facilities, we may hope to get back to the pre-War facilities that were enjoyed by the nation, which is, however, for the time being, probably prepared to dispense with them in the urgent interest of national economy.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I know there are a large number of Members who desire to address the Committee, and therefore I shall detain the Committee for only a very few minutes; but like, I suppose, every other Member of the House, I have received a very large amount of
correspondence from my constituents, a very small portion of which I wish to place before the Committee. I would like to say on one point I am in very cordial agreement indeed with the Postmaster-General. If the alternatives which he has placed before the Committee are accepted by the Committee as exhaustive, then I think that he is choosing the less bad of the two alternatives. His point was, and I cordially agree, that the Post Office must be made to pay its way. It cannot exist, and ought not to continue to exist, on a subsidy from the taxpayers at large. I believe that if there is one thing of which the country is heartily sick, it is the subsidising of any trade or any industry at the expense of the community at large. On that point, then, I agree with the Postmaster-General; but I feel bound to ask whether the alternatives which he has placed before the Committee are in reality exhaustive. He says we must either increase the charges or we must have a subsidy.
We had a very interesting speech, if he will allow me to say so, from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman), who spoke from very large experience, to which, of course, I am only a stranger, on a very important interest, but I have a word to say with regard to that industry, for a number of my constituents are, if I may be allowed to say so, the best printers in the world, and they feel very strongly indeed with regard to this question which has been raised by my right hon. Friend opposite. The University Press of Oxford is at the present time printing a very large number of picture postcards for the British Empire, for the Wallace Collection, and for museums and galleries, and are having a very large sale for those postcards. The Treasury have lately realised—perhaps rather tardily realised—the very great educational value of those postcards, and they have called upon the museums and galleries under their charge to suggest suitable subjects for reproduction and generally to foster the scheme. It is pointed out by my constituents that it is exceedingly unfortunate that, just as one Department of the Government has become aware of the very high educational asset that costs them nothing to their Department, another Department should interpose an obstacle to that experiment. That point is one which I venture very
respectfully to urge upon the attention of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.
I return to my question whether the alternatives which the right hon. Gentleman has placed before the Committee are really exhaustive. The whole of this question is really contained in the two points which the Postmaster-General put before us this afternoon. It is almost entirely a question on the one side of salaries and wages, and on the other side of hours of work. We cannot get away from that, and, unpopular as the topic may be, and as it will be in some constituencies, it is a topic which we must force upon the attention of the Postmaster-General. Hardly anyone has spoken in this Debate without insisting that we must tackle the whole question of Civil Service bonuses from top to bottom, and especially from the top. I think that, under the conditions of the moment, it would be something approaching barbarity to begin at the bottom. I want to begin at the top.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I venture to say the worst economy my hon. Friend could name would be to underpay the most responsible civil servants of the State. This expenditure, according to the recommendations of a Committee comprising the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and two men of great business experience, was a wise and prudent expenditure, if we were to maintain the great traditions and character of the Civil Service.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I am very glad to have that interruption, but the whole value of that interruption, if I may say so, depends upon the acceptance of one of my right hon. Friend's premises, namely, that at the present time these higher civil servants are underpaid.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not that they are now, but that they were, and if my hon. Friend will take the trouble to read the Report of Mr. Asquith's Committee, I do not think he will dispute it.

Mr. MARRIOTT: The real point of it is that you have got to bring these salaries in relation to the incomes, the earnings and the salaries of other people similarly situated in the outside world.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear!

Mr. MARRIOTT: I am very glad to have that cheer from the Lord Privy Seal, but I know what he has got in his mind. He has got in his mind that these salaries ought to be equated with the commercial world.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

Mr. MARRIOTT: But that was the argument of the Postmaster-General. I am in the recollection of the Committee. He was comparing the salaries of the higher civil servants with the salaries in the City of London. I say that is a false comparison, and that the true comparison is that which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir C. Oman) with the professional classes of this country.

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am sure the last thing my hon. Friend would desire to do would be to form a conclusion on a false premise. I made it perfectly clear, because I had that very point in my mind, that you could not expect the civil servants to receive equal salaries with salaries received in commercial circles, but that there should be some relation, and that the distinction should not be so great as to make it impossible for us to retain first-class men.

Mr. MARRIOTT: One of the right hon. Gentleman's points was that civil servants were being tempted away into commercial posts. He was comparing the remuneration of civil servants, not with those with whom they ought properly to be compared, as they were by the hon. Member for Oxford University, but with people in commercial life. Of course, it is perfectly obvious that no permanent service like the Civil Service can be compared with commercial life. It is, I suggest, an unfair and improper comparison, whereas that put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for the University is a more proper one. The whole of this question is really a question of reorganisation—

It being a Quarter past Sight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LOCHABER WATER POWER BILL (By Order).

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE 53 (a).—Rights in respect of water power from River Spey for electricity purposes of County of Banff and Counties of Moray and Nairn.)

Inasmuch as the county council of Banff and the county council of Moray have in view using the waters of the watershed of the River Spey for the manufacture of electricity for use within the areas under their authority the provisions of the immediately preceding Section in so far as they relate to the River Spey and all streams and tributaries flowing into the same shall not come into operation until the expiration of 10 years after the passing of this Act, and then only in the event of the said county councils or either of them not having obtained authority for the supply of electricity within their areas as aforesaid.—[Mr. C. Barrie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. C. BARRIE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Those who oppose this Bill, the county councils of Banff and Moray, might, in view of the nature of the proposals which have been put forward, have moved its rejection, but they have no desire to take up an uncompromising attitude, and so long as they are protected in the manner proposed in this Clause they will not take what would appear to be an extreme course. The promoters of the Bill have not quite considered the point of view of the counties of Banff and Moray. They, no doubt, have their own view, and think that by promoting the Bill they are conferring a great benefit on the counties of Inverness and neighbouring counties, and that they will bring a certain amount of employment into those areas. I am not here to say that this will not be the case, but we in Moray and Banff feel that this is a selfish Bill, and I will endeavour to show the House in a few words that that is the case.
The North of Scotland, as many hon. Members may know, is not a rich country. Each county has more or less to live on itself. There are no large pits or works, and therefore each county has to try to make the best of its natural resources. There is agriculture, and the lettings of fishings, which constitute a very large source of revenue to those who live in the counties, and, indeed, to the county
council itself. For some time past the counties of Moray and Banff have been considering the possibilities of making use of the River Spey for electrical power, and when I was in Banff last August the county council saw me in regard to the matter as to what best could be done. I advised them that the proper course to take was to get a hydro-electrical engineer to advise them. They at once took the matter in hand, and negotiations were still proceeding when this Lochaber Water Power Bill was produced. They were further encouraged to do so by the Electrical Supply Act of 1919, which, as the House knows, was the first Bill of its kind to encourage communities to utilise electricity for motive and lighting purposes. That Bill only obtained the Royal Assent in December, 1919, and it cannot be suggested that either of the counties has delayed very long in taking the necessary action for rinding out what the River Spey can do in the way of providing necessary electrical force. I will give the promoters of the Bill this credit, that they are very honest in the Clauses of their Bill, and the candour with which the Clauses are presented in view of the Act of 1919 is very refreshing indeed. For instance, Clause 63 says:
Subject to the provisions of this Act the company may by means of the waterworks or some of them raise and lower or regulate the level of the water in Loch Laggan, Loch Treig and Idir Loch and may take, appropriate, impound, store, use, collect, abstract, divert and distribute for the purposes of the undertaking, (a) The waters of the River Spey," and so on.
So far from the diversion or abstraction or appropriation of these waters which the Bill proposes being encouraged by Parliament, entirely the reverse is the case, for it was the deliberate and considered instruction of the House, expressed in Section 15 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, which imposed a distinct veto on taking water from any river unless provision was made for the return of the water to the place from which it was taken, so as to avoid the unnecessary destruction of fishings or injury to public health. Clause 15 of that Act said:
The Board of Trade, on the representation of the Electricity Commissioners, may, by Order, authorise any Joint Electricity Authority or any authorised undertakers to abstract water from any river, stream, canal, inland navigation, or other source and to do all such acts as may be necessary for the
purpose of enabling the Joint Electricity Authority or authorised undertakers to utilise and return the water so abstracted," and so on.
This Bill does not propose to return the water. It proposes to divert it and to take it away down to an entirely different county altogether, and to use it for commercial purposes. If the counties of Banff and Moray make use of the water they will return it, but here you have a Bill which is in direct contravention of the Electricity Act, 1919, and I wish to say quite candidly that it is a very one-sided Bill indeed that allows anything of that sort. One of the most important points in the Electricity Act was the Clause which I have quoted, and I would ask what is the good of the House of Commons passing an Act of Parliament as a protection for the community if private Bills are to be promoted in direct contravention of it. In this Bill not only is there no provision for the return of the water to the parent stream, but they are taking the water to an entirely different stream altogether for use for commercial purposes. What is going to happen to the counties through which this water previously went? What the promoters say in effect is: "We will take the water so long as there is a flow of 40,000,000 gallons in 24 hours at certain times." In other words, they propose to attempt to teach Nature her business. Look at Clause 54 of the Bill. Sub section (2) says:
 On any day during such time as the flow of water in the River Spey at Laggan Bridge shall be less than at the rate of 40,000,000 gallons per day of 24 hours the company shall not be entitled to abstract or divert any water from the said rivers . … but during such time as the flow of water in the River Spey at Laggan Bridge is in excess of the aforesaid rate the company may abstract or divert all or any part of the water of the said rivers . … in excess of what is required to provide the foresaid rate of flow in the River Spey at Laggan Bridge.
One likes the candour of that. Nature has arranged the contour of the country, and who is to say that Nature is wrong? I have had some experience in other places as to diverting the course of water, and I know how dangerous it is to interfere with the works of Nature. Sanitation, fishing, everything else that follows is interfered with, no matter how certain the authorities may feel that everything will be right. The county councils of Banff and Moray do not think that in this
matter they are being protected. What is the real position in regard to this Bill so far as those councils are concerned? The Spey belongs to the counties of Banff and Moray, through which it flows most, and in which the greatest volume of its water is. It may begin in Inverness, but the better part of the river is in Banff and Moray, and it is idle for the supporters of the Bill to say that it flows mainly through Inverness. I see that they have issued a paper in support of the Bill, and I must say that I think Paragraph 14 is—I do not say intentionally—a little misleading. For the benefit of English Members who may not know that part of the world, I may say that it is much the same as saying that the Thames has nothing to do with London simply because it flows mostly through Oxfordshire, and that, because there is sometimes too much water flowing down, it should be diverted. The Spey has never been considered an Inverness-shire river. I understand that the promoters require some 60,000 horse-power, and that can be had from rivers there other than the Spey; but here is 10,000 horse-power which lies hard by, and it is a great inducement for them to carry their works a little further along, and impound or, as they say in the Bill, appropriate, another 10,000 horse-power which they can get practically for nothing. This Bill, so far as the waters of the Spey are concerned, is nothing less than a piece of what I consider to be daylight robbery.

Dr. MURRAY: Does it not goon at night?

Mr. BARRIE: I suppose it does. 10,000 horsepower is what they expect to get from the waters of the Spey. How much is that worth? How much would any commercial man pay for an extra 10,000 horsepower? He would pay a good deal, but what do the people promoting this Bill propose to pay for it? Nothing at all. They simply take it—impound it. Do they imagine that the people of Banffshire and Morayshire will sit quietly by and see the River Spey appropriated at its source, even although only 25,000,000 gallons of water are taken from it? Let me give another example. What would the people in the Thames Valley think if the people, say, at Bristol thought that they would like to have a little of the Thames water, and impounded it in the Cotswolds, saying to the people in the Thames Valley that
because they had too much they would take a little from them. Who is to benefit by this Bill? Is it the community of Inverness? I do not think it is. Although, undoubtedly, there will be some benefit to them, most of the benefit goes to a private commercial company, the British Aluminium Company, the profits of which are not held in Inverness, but all over the country. It will go into other people's pockets, so that there will be very little advantage, although there may be some, accruing to the people of Inverness. A certain amount of employment will be given for a time, but I doubt very much whether as much employment will be given as would be the case were electricity developed in Banffshire and Morayshire for the running of mills and factories. The river belongs to them; why should they not have the water power of which these people literally intend to rob them from the Spey?
As I said at the beginning, we do not wish to adopt what may be called a dog-in-the-manger policy, and, so far as Clause 53 is concerned, we think that nothing could be fairer than to add this proposed Clause 53A. We might have moved to reject the Bill, but we prefer to take this course. I think it will appeal to the House that, while the counties of Banff and Moray might have taken the obvious course of moving to reject the Bill altogether, they would like to see it go through, provided that the waters of the Spey are not taken. There is another point to which I desire to draw attention, namely, the pollution of the river. The medical officers of health have said that, in their opinion, in a dry summer season the sewage is just approaching danger point, and they warn the county councils that if the water is impounded at the source of the river, as proposed in this Bill, they will not be responsible for the consequences. I hope that the House will agree with me that the councils of Banff and Moray are behaving with great generosity in making this proposal.

Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON: I beg to second the Motion. It has been said that this Bill comes before the House as an agreed Measure, but on that there is a very direct conflict of opinion. I understand that the proposal of the promoters of the Bill was that compensation
water should be sent down the Spey to the extent of 25,000,000 gallons per day, coupled with the condition that, upon 12 days in the year, there should be an artificial spate sending down 100,000,000 gallons. That was the position when the Chairman of the Committee announced the decision of the Committee in the following words:
The Committee are of opinion that the Preamble of the Bill is proven, subject to the learned counsel for the promoters of the Bill submitting Clauses to carry out the following alterations. The natural flow of the Upper Spey above the point of intake is not to be obstructed up to a flow of 30,000,000 gallons per 24 hours. In addition, the Spey District Fishery Board shall have the right to demand that on any 12 days in the year, when the flow of the river shall be sufficient for the purpose, it shall not be obstructed until it reaches a flow of 100,000,000 gallons.
That being the decision of the Committee, the counsel representing the county of Moray, and also the counsel representing the county of Banff, retired from the scene, as the matter was then, so far as they were concerned, decided against them, and they did not in any way acquiesce in that decision. However, it seems that on a subsequent day the promoters of the Bill and the Committee had some further interview and communication, and on that occasion the Chairman had before him a proposal which, apparently, had been arrived at with the counsel representing the Spey Fishery Board—not the counsel representing the County Council of Moray or of Banff; and that that particular counsel, representing the Spey Fishery Board, and the Committee, came to an agreement to increase the 30,000,000 gallons per day to 40,000,000, but to do away with the requirement that there should be an artificial spate on 12 days in the year. The terms were, therefore, completely varied after the County Councils of Moray and Banff had disappeared from the scene. Then the Chairman asks, on this agreement being come to between this particular party and the Committee:
I first of all require from somebody responsible a serious and valid undertaking that this is now an agreed Bill and that no party of any sort or kind would oppose the Bill while it is in another place.
The Council for the Spey Fishery Board answered:
I can give an absolute undertaking on the part of the Spey Fishery Board. I can give an absolute undertaking on the part of the Seafield Trustees. I believe I am right
in saying that the County Council's opposition here was to support the case of the Spey Fishery Board, and I believe I am right in saying that so far as they are concerned the settlement with the Board will be a settlement with the County Council.
The chairman said:
Is counsel here representing the Count Council?
Mr. CLODE: They have now gone away.
The CHAIRMAN: I really do not think I can vary the finding.
Mr. CLODE: Might it he put in this way, that it shall be conditional on the withdrawal of the opposition of the County Council, which I believe will be withdrawn.
Well it is not withdrawn, and we are here to voice it. That, I think, clears the ground as to the agreed Bill.
We come to another point. In this Bill we have a new precedent being created. We have had in this country a good many cases where the head waters of a river have been impounded and diverted to some other water shed for the benefit of some public authority. We have never had, as far as I know, a single case where the water of the upper part of the river has been diverted from one watershed to another for the benefit of the shareholders in a public company—a private company in one sense, but a public company, of course, in the other. Here is the House of Commons, if it passes this Bill without this new Clause, going to create a dangerous precedent that private adventurers, if you may call shareholders in a company adventurers, should come to the House of Commons, and in a small Committee of four Members, not one of whom, as far as I know, was a Scotsman, or knew very much personally about it, pass this Bill to take away the waters from the Spey to give them to a company, to divert them at the head waters of the Spey and send them down to the other side of Scotland for the benefit of a private company. I ask the House to pause before it agrees to such a policy as that.
Another point is that this is a gift of very great value, and there is nothing being paid for it. There is no compensation whatever. The only compensation suggested is that the flooding of certain Laughlands in the upper part of the river's source will be minimised, if not prevented. I very gravely doubt whether that would be the real effect, because, as far as I know, there is a minimum guarantee, but there is no thing in the
Bill to prevent the promoters letting the whole flood go down Morayshire. It is true they have to give a minimum every day, but so far as I have read in the Bill there is nothing to prevent them sending the whole flood down Morayshire, though they say they intend to do something else with it. Therefore there is no benefit to the people on the banks of the Spey, either in Inverness-shire or in Morayshire, in connection with the proposal to divert the waters from their natural flow.
The next point I should like to make is this: It is very necessary, both from the point of view of health and of the fisheries, which are valuable on this river, that there should from time to time be strong floods, or spates as we call them, clearing the course of the river to benefit the public health and to allow the salmon to go up the river. It is in the upper regious of the Spey, in the very catchment area that the promoters of the Bill have coveted, that the clouds burst and the rainfall comes, and if that area is to be dealt with and that storm water to be diverted somewhere else, certainly the River Spey will lose a great benefit of Nature which we can hardly estimate in words, because no one knows what the amount of water is that falls in these floods in the upper part of the Spey, but it rises in the highest part of the mountains in Scotland where the clouds sometimes burst and the water comes down in great volume, and it is very necessary for the benefit of the Spey, both on health grounds and on the ground of the preservation of the fisheries. I want to represent this case from the point of view of the people of the county of Moray on three grounds. First of all, the fisheries, and, secondly, in connection with health, because it is very essential that there should be a good scouring of the river. In the opinion of the medical officers of health, the quantity of water that flows in the Spey at its lowest point is barely sufficient to keep the river scoured and the conditions healthy for the inhabitants who live on its banks.
There is another very important point—the generation of electric power. I have taken a great deal of interest in this question of electric power. I was the Chairman of a Committee that investigated the subject very patiently for a long time, and on whose Report the Electricity Bill of 1919
was largely founded. It was contemplated in that Bill that the Electricity Commissioners, when established, should take into consideration schemes for different areas in the country whereby electricity might be most economically and beneficially produced. That Bill only became an Act of Parliament on 23rd December, 1919, and in October, 1920, ten months later, this company takes proceedings to get these powers that it now seeks from Parliament, so that the County Councils of Moray and Banff had a period of ten months during which they might have initiated action and the Electricity Commissioners had an equal period during which they in their turn might have initiated action. But the Electricity Commissioners did nothing during that time in connection with the area of Scotland to which I have referred. They did nothing to investigate the need, or the possibilities of supplying that need, from the waters of the Spey. The local County Councils, both for Moray and Banff, as is usual with Scotch county councils, have the characteristics of the Scotsman. They are deliberate, they are cautious, and they are prudent, and small blame to them. Consider what was the position in 1920. Wages at their highest point and prices at the highest point. Could you expect that any reasonable county council would, during such conditions as that, have taken in hand a scheme to develop electric power from the Spey? Moreover, how was it possible, in a condition of such abnormal prices as ruled in 1920, to know what was going to be the cost of your scheme, and at what price, therefore, you could supply electric power? It was not possible, and it is only fair to those county councils to give them the longer time which is proposed under this new Clause, so that they may deliberately, when things are normal, consider the situation. They have already made some inquiries. The hon. Member for Banff has told the House that the county council there appointed an engineer to investigate the matter from their point of view. The County Council of Moray did not appoint an engineer, I understand, until this Bill was introduced or foreshadowed, at any rate until notice was given, and then they appointed an engineer, who has made some investigations of a tentative
character for that county. So far as those investigations go they show that there would be a considerable consumption of electricity both for power and light in those areas. We all know that these are not the great industrial areas of the country, but for that reason why should we starve or in any way interfere with the development of such industries as they have. Moreover, no one can fore tell what other industries may grow up in a district of that kind. Who would have thought of aluminium going to Fort William, even a few years ago? When we were boys no one would have dreamed of such a thing. Are we to say that the Spey or the Spey Valley is to be precluded from developments in the future? I think not. Therefore, I say, give the county councils time to consider this matter with that deliberation and that prudence which shoul be rightly conceded to them.
I want to put these considerations very strongly before the House. With respect to the witnesses who were called, I have no doubt they got before the Committee the hearing to which they were entitled; but I do not think that the Committee fully appreciated the position of Scottish counties such as Moray and Banff. I do not see that any harm could be done to the promoters of this Bill by the new Clause that we ask the House to pass, because the promoters have given the Committee to understand that even if the 10,000 horse-power which they look to obtain from the Spey was not conceded to them, that that would not necessarily interfere with the scheme. The total horse-power that they are going to get from the other watersheds on the Inverness-shire side and Fort William side is, I understand, 62,000 horsepower, and they wish to get 10,000 horsepower in addition from the upper waters of the Spey. I understand that they gave the Committee to understand that even if they did not get their 10,000 horsepower from the Spey it would not wreck the scheme. If that be so, and as they have said that 50,000 horse-power is the economical unit they desire to set up, that is another argument why we might well dispute their getting possession of the extra 10,000 horse-power from the Spey, if the counties of Moray and Banff require it for themselves.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I am sorry to have to intrude my presence to-night, and I do so, having no personal interest of any
kind in this Bill, merely as Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill. I have been one of the chairmen of Private Bill Committees in this House for 11 years, and I and those who sit with me have always felt it to be our duty to give very serious consideration to all the matters that come before us. Therefore, I cannot accept for one single moment the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Williamson) that the evidence did not receive the greatest possible consideration, and did not have due weight with the Committee. At the present time it is the absolute duty of a Committee of the House of Commons to see that there shall be no great waste of money if they can possibly avoid it, and that districts should be put to very heavy expenses for the duplication of evidence, is a thing against which, so long as I am Chairman of a Private Bill Committee, I shall set my face.
This Bill, in the unanimous opinion of the Committee before which it came, is one of the very greatest national importance. It is not a question of profits going into the pockets of ordinary shareholders, but it is a great attempt by what we have always supported in this House, namely, the action of private individuals to endeavour to conserve for the national welfare a very great public asset. During the War we suffered intensely from the want of many of those things that were necessary. It is well known that the want of aluminium was a very great misfortune, and that we had to make our purchases abroad. In this country there is the British Aluminium Company, and there is a company in Wales. These were facts which the Committee had to take into consideration. Moreover, the Committee had evidence that the British Aluminium Company were endeavouring to get 72,000 horse-power for the purpose of making this absolutely necessary article, which is vital to the interests of the country, and in so doing they give increased employment and would take another 3,000 more people into their works. That was another point that I as Chairman and my fellow-members were bound to take into serious consideration. It is not for me to point out the troubles of the present time, or to point out the unemployment that exists and the difficulties which must face any Government in finding means of employment, but I say that it is necessary that
any Committee upstairs should take into serious consideration these vital points.
I come to the Bill itself. We had to consider the points I have mentioned, and it was our duty to go very carefully into the evidence. First of all, we had to decide whether it was possible in any shape to obtain 72,000 horse power. Another scheme was brought forward by those opposing the Bill, but it broke down on the evidence of their own engineer, who said that it was impossible for them to do it, because of the enormous length of pipe and the enormous cost to the promoters. Therefore, we were driven back to the waters of the Spey. I allow at once that the waters of the Spey are in a different watershed from the rest of the waters which this Bill proposes to take. I consider that you are entitled to divert waters from one water-shed to another if you are going to serve a great national purpose. The Mover and Seconder of the new Clause say that it will not wreck the Bill. It is absolutely a wrecking Clause, and there has never been a Clause devised with greater certainty than that if accepted by this House it would absolutely wreck the Bill with which it was concerned.
Let us consider the proposed diversion of the waters of the Spey for this national purpose. From what source are the waters to be diverted? From the head waters of the Spey. The opponents of the Bill would not say that they have any proprietary rights over the head waters of the Spey. I put that question to a witness. I asked him whether they had any right if anybody else diverted it, and what possible action they could take. He suggested that they would be poachers, and I said: "You would seem to be as much poachers yourselves, if you insisted upon taking these waters, as those who were taking them now, and whom you dub as poachers." The county councils of Moray and Banff say they want the waters of the Spey for electricity purposes, but we had evidence, which they were absolutely unable to disprove, that it was impossible for them to erect any real power station there, and that any power they got would be of no value because the fall of the Spey to the sea is so gentle that they would never get sufficient power to develop any real horse power. I am trying to put the case which for seven anxious days I had to consider, and it is not an easy task be-
cause I want to cover all the points and yet to be brief. I am not interested except to prove that the chairman and his colleagues on this committee gave the greatest possible consideration to the subject and gave the decision which they thought was right. On the Spey proper there is not sufficient fall for the erection of a power station of any value.
The engineer opposing this Bill was examined and cross-examined, and I put some leading questions to him myself, and his evidence was that he had been consulted for the first time exactly one month before he put in an appearance in the box. I leave the House to draw its own conclusions, but those who have been engaged in work for a great many years in this House know that this is not the first time that this procedure has been taken, where you want to oppose a Bill and hastily call in people in order to have an opinion given which will lead to the supposition that they have been for a long time, considering these points. I was told by my hon. Friend opposite that under the Electricity Act one was not allowed to abstract water without returning it. I have here the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, and I find that that does not apply to this case. If the case of my hon. Friends opposite is as good as they say, they might at all events deal fairly with us.
We sat for seven days. We had evidence before us, clear and concise, that this was a national project which would be of immense service to the country, that it would employ very many people, and that though it would divert the waters of the Spey, it would divert waters which could be of no possible use on any great scale if left as they are. The very last thing I would like to do is to ruin a small industry, a sporting industry—for I regard the salmon industry as a sporting industry. One does not ruin one industry to help another. Therefore, we had to consider carefully the evidence of witnesses brought forward to oppose this on behalf, of the Spey Fishery Board, and we came to the conclusion that what they desired was, in order that the salmon might run, that they might have the full advantage of the summer freshets. When the river is at its lowest, we were told that 10,000,000 gallons flow down the Spey on a very dry day in summer. The Com-
mittee very carefully considered all the points and gave their ruling. They were unanimous on this question, and I believe that their decision was right.
9.0 P.M
They decided that the average amount of water flowing down the river, guaranteed, must be increased by 5,000,000 gallons, but in order that we might obtain for the salmon industry, so that the fish might run, the full value of the summer freshets, our ruling was that on 12 days—the choice of those whose duty it was to protect the fisheries—they should be able to call for 100,000,000 gallons a day if they so chose. There were many points put afterwards to show that this was difficult or impossible, but there is no difficulty. Those who have charge of the fishing industry have only got, to say: "The river is low. The salmon are not running, and the next time there is a summer freshet we want 100,000,000 gallons in 24 hours." That was quite easy, and that was the ruling. The following day it was arranged that the Clause should be brought up. I well recollect our legal friend appearing next day on behalf of the Spey Fishery Board. His opening words were: "Mr. Chairman, I appear before you in a white garb. I have to ask you to alter your ruling." I said to him on behalf of the Committee: "It is a very serious thing to ask us to alter our ruling. On what grounds do you do it?" He said: "We had a meeting of the parties concerned and we agreed that we would prefer to have an average daily flow of 40,000,000 gallons rather than an average flow of 30,000,000 with 12 selected days of 100,000,000." I said on behalf of the Committee: "This is entirely against the weight of all your evidence and the Committee would only agree on one condition, that is that all the parties to this Bill will undertake to make it a guaranteed Bill and that there will be no further opposition to it in another place." Learned Counsel then agreed, so far as the Fishery Board were concerned and also everybody else except the Banff and Moray County Council. The Banff and Moray County Council had gone, but they were represented by their agent. In the absence of counsel the agent has a perfect right to say what he thinks, and he never raised an objection of any kind.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The decision had been given by the Committee on a previous day and the council were entitled to go back.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I disagree. There were Clauses to be considered, and there were other parties who had not been even heard on the Bill, and I take strong objection to the absence of the council, but the agent never raised any objection and left on the mind of the whole Committee the impression that this was to be an agreed Bill or we would not have varied our ruling, and if those who to-day moved the Amendment had only had the common courtesy to tell the Committee that they intended to take the action which they have taken to-night we would have communicated with the Chairman of Committees and told him, and the whole thing would have fallen through, because it was not an agreed Bill. I have formed a very strong opinion that there are other things behind this, but all I can say—

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us what they are.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I will do nothing of the kind. I am here as Chairman of the Committee.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: You are making an insinuation against the county council.

Sir H. SAMUEL: No. I have nothing to do with the county council. All I say is that I believe that there are things behind this. I am only here to maintain my decision.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I really must ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has a right to make insinuations against the County Council of Moray without explaining what he has in his mind.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I have made no insinuations. I have said there are things behind this. I do not understand the action of my right hon. Friend now. There are motives behind this not apparent to the Committee. At all events, I cannot help thinking so.

Sir F. BANBURY: Am I to understand that the Committee said to the promoters or the opponents, "We will do certain things if you will agree not to carry your opposition further"? If that is so, has the Committee any right to make such a stipulation? Are they not to judge whether a thing is right or wrong and not to make a bargain?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I think that is a matter left to the Chairman of the Committee to decide. If you get an agreed Bill, if it can be varied so that there will be no further opposition, and all expense will be spared, I think such action is proper action for a Committee to take. If I am Chairman of a Committee again, and the point arises, I shall do it again. I believe that the decision we gave was a right and proper decision. I believe that by our decision we have served a great industry. I believe we have given power to a great industry to employ a large number of men, and in doing that I believe we shall not have deprived any portion of Scotland of real benefit.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell - Thomson): It will perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I explain where the Board of Trade stands in relation to this Bill and give, so far as it is in my power to do so, what advice I can to the House as to the reception of the new Clause. I use the word "advice" because I do not in the slightest degree wish any hon. Member to think that I can exert any pressure on him. At the same time it is my duty, with such knowledge as I have, to offer advice and I propose to try to do so. I doubt whether it has yet been wholly appreciated what is the effect of the new Clause. Both speakers in support of the Clause made admirable speeches from their own point of view, but they both claimed for the Clause a virtue which is about the last I should find in it—the virtue of moderation. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. C. Barrie) said he was moving the Clause because he wished to display a spirit of moderation, and the right hon. Member for Moray (Sir A. Williamson) said there would be no harm done to the Bill if the Clause were carried. In the interests of accuracy I am bound to let the House see exactly what the Clause is. The Clause says that certain works under the Bill, which are the works referred to in Clause 53, shall not come into operation until after the expiration of ten years. From listening to my right hon. Friend one might have inferred that the works referred to in that suspension were the works at the head waters of the River Spey. I might explain that the controversy which has arisen is as to whether a company which is promoting a large
water power scheme on the Atlantic sea-board of Scotland is to be entitled to divert a certain quantity of water from the head waters of the River Spey which runs to the Eastern seaboard of Scotland. It might have been apprehended from the remarks of the right hon. Member for Moray that what it was desired to suspend was the work in connection with the River Spey.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think the hon. Gentleman must have before him a previous print of this new Clause. The last print contains the words
in so far as they relate to the River Spey and all streams and tributaries flowing into the same.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Then the Clause has been altered since yesterday. My right hon. Friend has evidently anticipated the first point I was making on the subject. But the right hon. Member omits all reference to Clause 61, from which hon. Members will see that whereas under the proposed new Clause, if carried, nothing is to happen for ten years, under Clause 61, if the works authorised by this Act are not completed in ten years, the powers cease altogether. The House will therefore apprehend the true effect of carrying this Amendment. That effect will be to abrogate altogether the powers in the Bill. The function of the Government in cases of this kind is confined to two questions—first, is the proposed undertaking substantially for the benefit of the community; secondly, are the rights of the community duly safeguarded? There is a further point for consideration by this House. It is, Has due consideration been given to any possible prejudice to the rights of some individual members of the community if the proposal is carried into effect? I will offer such advice as I can as to the first two considerations. First, is it substantially for the benefit of the community? To that the answer is in the affirmative. With what commodity it is to deal? It is to deal with the manufacture principally of aluminium.
As has been said, aluminium is a substance with which during the War we had considerable concern. I refrain from saying anything about key industries. I do not put it quite as high as that, but the making of it is of very great interest and importance to this country, and it becomes increasingly important, as the
production of aluminium has gradually increased. In 1900 the world production was 5,000 tons, and in 1913 it had risen to 100,000 tons, and now it is something like 200,000 tons per annum. The German production—which shows its importance in time of war—has increased from some thing like 800 tons in a year to something approaching 30,000 tons. Under these circumstances the House will see that aluminium is a substance of increasingly great commercial importance. There is another thing which deserves consideration. In the process of production an extraordinarily large—a surprisingly large—quantity of electric horse-power is consumed. To produce 1 ton of aluminium requires 5 electric horse-power going day and night for a year. It will be appreciated that when you come to production on a large scale if you are to produce cheaply you must also produce power on a large scale, so a further reason from the point of view of the community is in regard to the development of power. In these years in which we are living—as is borne out by contemporary circumstances—we are passing through a transition stage, and we are slowly passing from coal to some other power. After all, we are within conceivable sight of, I do not say the end of our coal resources, but the serious depletion of those coal resources. We have to find, and the world has to find, other sources of power. All over the world the keenest minds are trying to discover alternative sources of power. Oil, so far as our knowledge goes, is, like coal, a limited supply, but we have other possible sources which may be successfully developed, such as cheap power alcohol, as to which there are great hopes that somebody will one day invent a cheap process of distillation.
There is one source of power which is capable of development at the present moment, and that is water power. We are not very well off in this country in natural resources, but we have some resources, of which this, amongst other water schemes, is one of the most potent. Therefore the Government can take no action to discourage any attempt to develop a source of power of this character. This will involve the development of areas which at the present moment are comparatively waste areas, and I may add in that connection that a Clause has been put in for the preservation of amenities which, I understand,
was agreed to by the promoters. Lastly but not leastly, there is the question of employment. If the power of the under-taking is fully exercised it will give employment to 2,000 or 3,000 men, and in the course of the construction work a much greater number will be engaged. Taking all these points into consideration, we are bound to answer in the affirmative the first question, namely, Is it substantially for the benefit of the community? The second question is, Are the rights of the community properly safeguarded? On that, I think, hon. Members will see we have done our best. The Electricity Commissioners have been consulted, and are satisfied as to the provisions made for the supply of power on reasonable terms to people living in the locality, and we have made provisions in Clause 107 for reserving an eventual option to the State to repurchase or re acquire the undertaking on terms from the promotors at the expiration of a period of 30 years on one set of terms, and at the end of 60 years on another set of terms. We have done the best we can to protect the rights of those in the locality.
There only remains a third point which, as I say, is not a point really for the Board of Trade to advise upon. It is the question of whether full consideration has been given to the rights of those individuals, county councils, and others who may be prejudicially affected by the proposal. As to that, I can only speak to my fellow Members of the House, not officially, but as voicing my own opinion. I am bound to say I cannot see how in a matter of this kind this House can hope to set itself up successfully against the considered and weighty decision of its own Committee. I see no use in having a Committee at all if that is to be done. That is my opinion, and I would not be fair to the House if I did not express it. For this House to take the view that it is to act like Penelope, holding itself free to unravel all the fabrics we have most carefully woven ourselves, is a procedure that I do not think in the long run will be found desirable. In this instance the advice which I give to the House is that they shall reject the Clause which has been proposed.

Mr. HOPKINS: As I was one of the Members who listened to the cases of the promoters and opponents of this Bill respectively, I may mention that during
seven days we paid close attention to very able counsel and very voluminous evidence. I think the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman who moved this additional Clause had not the knowledge which we had after listening to the evidence. If they had had that evidence fully before them they would hardly find themselves able to support this Clause. The mover of the Clause never mentioned that the only water which the promoters propose to take are flood waters. They do not propose to interfere with or obstruct any water from the upper reaches of the Spey. These flood waters are, and have been for the last 60 years, a source of very considerable damage to the lands in the region of the River Spey above the town of Rothes. The Committee insisted upon the promoters increasing the size of the conduit by which they brought off these flood waters so that the damage to the lands, so far as it was caused by floods by the Upper Spey, might be entirely avoided. I understand that on this Clause there is no longer any question of damage to the fishing industry. We very carefully considered that on the Committee, and the representatives of the Spey fishing interests agreed, on concessions being made to them, to withdraw their opposition. As to the objection on the score of health, I think the medical witnesses who gave evidence before us hardly regardly the matter as serious. If the Spey were in the state which some of them hinted the Committee might believe, there would be no fish in it at all.
In regard to the reason for this new Clause, which is that the counties of Moray and Banff might, at some future time, desire to use this water for the development of electric power for industries in their own counties, that contention is entirely baseless, because the flood water from the Spey is quite unsuitable and unusable for the development of electric power in those counties. In the first place, no sane engineer would suggest building a power station to utilise only flood water, and it could not be used except by the construction of enormous reservoirs. No fall can be obtained on the Spey of any importance except by the construction of entirely unthinkable works. The engineer who had studied the matter on behalf of these counties for one month in order to give evidence before the Committee said that he did not find, and did
not think it would be possible to find, in the main course of the Spey, even after considerable expenditure, a fall exceeding 80 feet. These waters, when utilised by the promoters of this Bill, would have a fall exceeding 800 feet. That is to say, the use of the water, as proposed under this Bill, will be ten times as economic as it would be with the expenditure of great sums of money if utilised in the Spey fall. As a member of that Committee I must say I think the Councils of Moray and Banff were very badly advised when they used their ratepayers' money on sending witnesses to London and on being represented before the Committee by counsel. It appeared to me that they had the very, very slightest interest in this Bill at all. The House will hardly believe that none of the promoters' works are even in or anywhere near the two counties. The Mover of this Clause drew a comparison with London and the Thames. The position of these counties is just what it would be if the counties of Essex and Kent spent their ratepayers' money on opposing a scheme, say, of the County Council of Oxford shire to divert the flood waters of the Thames. It is a matter in which these counties have a very slight interest, and certainly not enough to incur the expenses which they have incurred. However, that is a matter for them.
I can assure the House that it is practically impossible for these counties, or the County of Inverness, which might have the first claim on the waters which fall and run through their counties to utilise those waters to develop electric power in any way whatever. If the counties of Banff and Moray do want to develop electric power with the waters of the Spey, it has many tributaries, quite as important as the Upper Spey, which have a good fall in their territory and can be used to develop a very considerable amount of power. It appears to me that the House should entirely reject this Clause, which is, in effect, a wrecking Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!" and "Hear, hear!"] After hearing what the objects of the Bill were, and the opponents of the Bill, I say that, in my opinion, this is a wrecking Clause, and nothing else. I think it is in the interests of the nation, and therefore it is an interest that ought to be forwarded by this House, that this Bill should become law and be carried into effect, because it will provide,
not only an important national industry, but a great deal of labour on the construction of the works and permanent employment for 2,000 or 3,000 men, which is very much wanted.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Morison): The effect of this Clause has been rightly pointed out by the hon. Baronet the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. If it is accepted the scheme of the British Aluminium Company, which they have promoted under this Bill, will be effectively wrecked. I rise for the purpose of making, on behalf of the county of Inverness, which I represent in this House, some observations in reply to the speeches made by my hon. Friends the right hon. Member for Moray (Sir A. Williamson) and the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. C. Barrie). I rather think that the House may be under the impression that the purpose and scope of this Bill is to take and divert waters from the River Spey to the detriment of the counties of Moray and Banff. That is a total misconception of the scheme promoted by this Bill. The Bill incorporates for the first time in the highlands of Scotland a power company, which is composed of eminent commercial and business men, with a strong financial backing behind them who promote this company, with a capital of £3,000,000, which is to be devoted to development of very great water power at present running to waste in the county of Inverness. There are two great valleys in Inverness. One is the valley of the Spean, and on the other side of the hill there is the valley of the Spey. The two valleys, however, are closely connected with each other, so much so that it is known that upon large floods the waters which naturally would have gone into the Spey have fallen into the other valley of the Spean. The main proposals in this Bill are to develop the water power of the Spean, and, by using the lakes Loch Laggan and Loch Treig for storage purposes, to acquire 50,000 horsepower per annum from the water there stored. The reason why the headwaters of the River Spey come into this scheme at all arises partly by accident. For over 50 years the people who live in the top of the Spey Valley, between Kincraig and New to more, have been suffering very great loss by the floodings of the top waters of the Spey. I have myself seen haystacks and stock being carried down
by those flood waters. Every person who knows the district knows that the roads in the locality have been seriously damaged by flood water and also that the interests of agriculture have seriously suffered, not merely by the destruction of the stock, but also by injury to the land, and what the promoters of this Bill did was to say, "We shall impound, not the average flow of the River Spey at all, but a certain proportion of the flood waters of the river, and use these for the purposes of developing power in our power station which will have the result of freeing the inhabitants of Speyside from all the loss and injury which these floods have caused them." That is the aim and scope of the Bill. It is suggested that the people of Moray and Banff will be prejudiced, but before one gallon of floodwater can be taken from the Spey, its flow must not be less than 40,000,000 gallons per 24 hours, which is five times in excess of the ordinary summer flow of that river.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The lowest summer flow is 25,000,000 gallons altogether.

Mr. HOPKINS: We had it in evidence that the lowest summer flow is 8,000,000 gallons.

Mr. MORISON: The right hon. Baronet has not really read the evidence. Before one gallon of the headwaters of the Spey can be taken by the promoters, there must flow down the river five times the average flow of the river during the summertime, and, therefore, when that is the situation, it seems idle to suggest that there is any difficulty arising in connection with this scheme. The other suggestion that I think was made by the hon. Member for Banff was that the provisions of the Electricity Act, 1919, had not been complied with. There again he is under a complete misconception. That matter was dealt with fully, and I am sure the Committee would never have passed this scheme if the Statute had not been fully complied with. My hon. Friend referred to the engineer to his county, whose services had been engaged to give evidence in connection with the scheme. What does this gentleman say about the value of the floodwaters of the Spey to the county of Banff?

Mr. C. BARRIE: I did not say the engineer that we had appointed had given
evidence. The engineer of the Banff County Council has given no evidence at all.

Mr. MORISON: I am obliged for the correction. It corrects a mistake. At all events the fact now appears to be that the county of Banff did not take the trouble to send an engineer to the Committee to give evidence. The engineer who was examined on this particular subject was asked this question:
You have got to get a certain length of the river before you can get a heading, have you not?
Answer: "I think I made that clear. I consider that the upper part of the Spey is out of the question.
That is to say, the effect of that gentleman's evidence was this, that Moray and Banff could not make any use whatever of the waters which the promoters of this undertaking were taking. The opinion of all the engineers is to this effect, that the counties of Moray and Banff strike the River Spey 40 miles away from the works which the promoters propose to undertake, and that the Spey when it flows through Moray and Banff is a very slow flowing river, and it seems very difficult to suppose that these counties would ever be able to make any economic use of the Spey River under any circumstances. My point is that neither in the evidence nor in the speeches of my hon. Friends can you get any real foundation for any complaint in regard to this scheme when one under stands that it is confined to the flood-waters, to the top of the Spey, 40 miles away from these two counties. I should like to mention that every riparian proprietor on the Spey supports this scheme.

Mr. GRANT: No.

Mr. MORISON: If my hon. Friend will tell me of any proprietor who does not, I shall deal with him.

Mr. GRANT: The proprietor of the property of Elchies, who owns some 12 miles of the Spey, bitterly opposed the Bill, and came up, but was not called to give evidence.

Mr. MORISON: I can only deal with the reported evidence, and not with the opinions of those not called; but in regard to what appears on the notes of evidence every proprietor supports the promoters of the scheme. In addition to that, let me say this, that every district committee, the
county council of Inverness, and every parish council in Inverness supports it. They think this scheme only does justice to the County of Inverness, because it permits the water power of the county to be used for industrial and public purposes within it. It is fair to say that a private company are the promoters of the scheme, but I do not think the scheme is any the worse on that account. The broad fact is that this scheme will provide employment for a great many people in the Highlands and will give permanent employment to between 2,000 and 3,000 more. Although the scheme is promoted in a district which has relied mainly upon agriculture, I think the House, which has always been indulgent to the Highlands of Scotland, will be quite ready to approve of the setting up of an industry in the Highlands which can confer very great benefit on them. The Highlands are no doubt sparsely populated, and they suffer from high costs and high rates, and the agricultural conditions of the County of Inverness are such that the solution of these problems cannot be left to agriculture alone. If the development of the water power of Inverness is undertaken and industry is introduced and production increased, we can hope to find a solution of the many Highland problems which have given anxiety and consideration upon many occasions to the House of Commons. I hope my horn. Friends will not press this Clause and that the House will be unanimous in permitting the scheme to proceed.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: It seems to me that the House, if it passes this Bill as it stands, will be creating a precedent which may have very far-reaching consequences. I am bound to say that I am not quite sure how I ought to vote if this matter is pressed to a Division. I have the honour of representing a district which includes the watersheds of both the Dee and the Don. I am bound to ask myself, if this Bill is passed to-night, how the precedent created will affect these particular districts—

Mr. SPEAKER: May I remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are dealing with the Spey.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I bow to your ruling, Sir. May I refer to a certain remark which fell from the Lord
Advocate? The hon. and learned Gentle man held out to the House as one of the things to which they should give consideration, and with regard to which they ought to pass this Clause, this fact: He alleged the spates which come down the Spey carried with them destruction to livestock, haystacks, and the agricultural industry generally. He said one of the objects of this Bill was to free the inhabitants of Spey side from the injury inflicted by these floods. If that is one of the objects of the Bill in respect of the Spey, undoubtedly this House will be inundated by appeals, if not from local bodies, from the inhabitants of every district in Scotland, to free them from the injuries to which the Lord Advocate has pointed.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: Why not?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Because that is not, as I understand it, the reason why the promoters of this Bill have brought it forward. It is one of the reasons the Lord Advocate has given to the House for passing it. If that is one of the reasons, or the main reason, for passing this Clause to-night, where is it going to stop? I am bound to say that if the House passes this Bill it will create a precedent which may be in the national interests or it may not. If it is, no one will give it more hearty support than I, but there are dangers in allowing Bills of this nature which take away in the interests of a private company water powers which might be converted to the national interest if the national interests were properly consulted. In the national interest, as against private interests, I am bound to record my vote against the Bill.

Mr. TOWNLEY: I would not have intervened, except that the Lord Advocate said that he represented Inverness. I speak as one of the Lord Advocate's voters, and in opposition to this Bill. I do not think sufficient attention has been paid to the fact that very great danger will be done to those lands on the side of the Spey, and through which the Spey passes—through Newton moor, Kingussie, and all that most beautiful country. I do not want to get outside the point of Order, but I understand that if this new Clause is carried it will wreck the Bill. I do not wish to wreck the Bill, nor do I wish to wreck the Spey. I want to see the Spey kept out
of the Bill. Why will it wreck the Bill? I understand that it is only one-seventh of the water proposed to be impounded which comes from the Spey. Surely if that is the case we are only using by one-seventh the water-power that is proposed to be accumulated for the purposes of private gain, and you are taking away from the East of Scotland water which the Almighty intended should go to the East of Scotland. I question whether the whole of Inverness is in favour of this Bill. The County Council has given its decision in favour of it, but we often hear that majorities have given decisions in favour of a certain thing, and have not considered the smaller localities. I am in one of the smaller localities. I see certain parishes mentioned in this Bill, but I do not see the parish of Duthil, in which I reside, mentioned in the Bill.
Again, I am told that no water is to be taken from the Spey until 40,000,000 gallons has come down. If that is so, what does the Sub-section of the Bill mean where it talks about 20,000,000 gallons; and that weir No. 10 is to be erected so that it would not come into action until 20,000,000 gallons has passed down the Spey. There seems to be some considerable discrepancy in these two sets of figures. I have seen the Spey almost dry at certain places, places where you usually look for water, places where additional charm is lent by the river to the beautiful landscape—and hon. Members of this House might do worse than go for their holidays to Speyside. If great care is not taken the House is going to inflict great hardship on the people who live on the banks of the Spey. Where are you going to stop? I have had to do with water companies before. I am dealing with one at the present time in one of the Eastern Counties. They said they were only going to take a very little of the water, and they said they would put up five or seven miles of fences

for me if it were necessary. They have had to do it because they have taken the whole of the water. I ask the House to pause before interfering with this water supply created by the Almighty, before they pass this Bill which may be doing great harm to a very important section of the Scottish nation.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir MATHEW WILSON: It has been said that you cannot possibly do any harm to a river by taking out its water, but that is not so. Up to the present the Government has not given us any hint as to which lobby we should go into upon this Bill. All I wish to say is that if you are going to take the waters of the Spey in the manner provided by this Bill you are going to do a great deal of harm to the salmon fishing in that river. I hope hon. Members will recollect when they go into the Division Lobby that this Bill will do harm.

Dr. MURRAY: I am not going to discuss this Clause on its merits because it is simply a wrecking proposal, and on that account I am going to vote against it. If this Bill is wrecked it will be a calamity to the whole of the Highlands. The scheme proposed in this Measure provides work for a large number of people who are engaged at certain seasons of the year in the fishing industry. I should have liked it better if this Measure had been promoted by a public authority, but we cannot wait for the millennium although people live for a long time in the Highlands. I have known schemes of this kind have been talked about in the days of my grandfather, and we are talking about them still and nothing has been done, and I am sure this Measure will confer very great benefit upon the Highlands.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 193.

Division No. 157.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Grant, James Augustus
Mills, John Edmund


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morgan, Major D. Watts


Betterton, Henry B.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Myers, Thomas


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hogge, James Myles
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Houston, Robert Patterson
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Cautley, Henry Strother
Johnstone, Joseph
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Kennedy, Thomas
Robertson, John


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lawson, John James
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Royden, Sir Thomas


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Spencer, George A.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Townley, Maximilian G.
Waterson, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
Mr. C. Barrie and Sir A. William-


Waring, Major Walter
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)
son.


NOES.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Austin, Sir Herbert
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Prescott, Major W. H.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Hayday, Arthur
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Reid, D. D.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Remnant, Sir James


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Renwick, George


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hinds, John
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Barnston, Major Harry
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hood, Joseph
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hopkins John W. W.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rose, Frank H.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Royce, William Stapleton.


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Borwick, Major G. O.
Irving, Dan
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Briant, Frank
Jephcott, A. R.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Bromfield, William
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Brown, Major D. C.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Bruton, Sir James
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stewart, Gershom


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Sturrock, J. Leng


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sutherland, Sir William


Butcher, Sir John George
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Swan, J. E.


Cairns, John
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Taylor, J.


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Maryhill)


Cobb, Sir-Cyril
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lorden, John William
Waddington, R.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Wallace, J.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Edgar, Clifford B.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Elveden, Viscount
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Matthews, David
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Erskine, J. M. M.
Mitchell, William Lane
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Evans, Ernest
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wignall, James


Fell, Sir Arthur
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Finney, Samuel
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Foreman, Sir Henry
Morris, Richard
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Forrest, Walter
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murchison, C. K.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Wintringham, Thomas


Gilbert, James Daniel
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Wise, Frederick


Gillis, William
Nall, Major Joseph
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Neal, Arthur
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Glanville, Harold James
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Nield, Sir Herbert
Woolcock, William James U.


Gould, James C.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Worsfold, T. Cato


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Gregory, Holman
Parker, James
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Greig, Colonel James William
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gretton, Colonel John
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Younger, Sir George


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike



Grundy, T. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Perring, William George
Dr. Murray and Mr. Hugh


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Morrison.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Polson, Sir Thomas A.

Bill to be read the Third time.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

REVENUE DEPAETMENT'S ESTIMATES, 1921–22. POST OFFICE.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on Consideration of Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £40,165,287, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the salaries and expenses of the Post Office, including telegraphs and telephones.

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £40,165,187, be granted for the said Service."

Mr. SPENCER: I quite agree with the proposition which has been placed before the Committee by the Minister in charge of this Vote to-night, namely, that, so far as it lies in his power, his Department should be made a paying Department, and if there is a loss, or likely to be a loss so far as the Department is concerned, I think it is the duty of the Minister to give very serious attention to any proposals whatever which might have the effect of putting the Department upon a sound financial basis. The first consideration should be whether it is possible to reduce in any degree the expenses of that Department, and so far as it is possible to reduce the expenses of that Department, I think the Minister is justified in giving it his very serious attention. He is proposing that the expenses of his Department shall be reduced by discontinuing the Sunday service. I am not disposed to question his wisdom in taking that step, but I should like to say that this proposal of his is viewed with alarm, at least by the lower paid staff of that Department. I have in my hand a letter which has been sent by the secretary of a very great branch of postal servants, who are complaining that they, as employés of the Department, through their organisation have not been consulted with regard to this proposed alteration. I should like to say, in connection with this, that before a Department of this character makes any change whatever in the service of its employés, the employés have a right, I think, to expect the Department at least
to consult them, and to see whether they themselves can suggest any alternative which will give the same effect as the Minister has in view with regard to the change.
The employés object to this change with regard to the Sunday service on three main grounds. The first is in regard to income. Some of the lower-paid servants, I understand, are getting, if not under £2 a week, very little over £2 & week for the full service for which they are wanted. I am thoroughly convinced that any servant of the Post Office in receipt of £2 a week at the present time is not in a position to have that standard of remuneration reduced in any way, and if it is contemplated that, by the discontinuance of Sunday service, men who are in receipt of low salaries of that character are going to be affected, then I think the Minister ought to pause before he makes that change. The second ground of objection is with regard to the change in the standard of their duty. I think I am right in saying that when Sunday duties are performed there are special rates. If Sunday service is discontinued, I am given to understand that men who to-day are engaged on Sunday in making proper arrangements for Monday's work will have to come at midnight on Sunday for the purpose of doing service hitherto rendered on the Sunday, and at substantially increased rates. The Post Office servants in some respects are objecting to have to come on Sunday evening to render service that has hitherto been done on some part of the Sunday. I am not advocating Sunday work; I believe, so far as it is possible and practicable, Sunday work altogether should be discontinued. But if you are going to discontinue service of this character, in discontinuing it you ought not to place a greater burden on those who are today bearing a very great burden so far as the service is concerned.
The third point is that they have not been consulted. I am not going to apologise for saying that, in my opinion, the Government should have consulted their employés with regard to this proposed scheme. All the best employers in the country, if they were contemplating some change so far as the relationship between themselves and their employés was concerned, would first have given due notice, and, secondly, would have been prepared to listen to any suggestions the
employés had to make for the purpose of giving the same effect by some other method. In this particular instance I understand from the letter which I have received, the employés of the Postal Service are to have no such opportunity of expressing their opinions. They look upon this action of the Minister with regard to this particular point as invalidating altogether their agreement with him. This is going to lead to very grave and serious discontent. I want to make one observation in particular, because it has been said by an hon. Member below the Gangway, that, if there is to be any reduction in wages or salaries, the reduction should not fall unduly heavily on the lower-paid workers. If there is to be any saving of expenditure by cutting down the remuneration of the employés that reduction should be spread over as large a field as possible. It should fall least heavily on those least able to bear it, and more heavily on those in a better position to shoulder the burden.
With regard to the extra charges which are going to be levied for services rendered, I quite agree that the Minister has a perfect right to direct his attention to seeing whether the services are paying or not, but when he comes here and proposes to levy an extra charge on any branch of the service he ought to be perfectly certain that that particular branch on which he proposes to place the extra charge is the branch that is losing. I have not seen any conclusive figures which justify the Minister in levying the extra charges in the direction he proposes to do. Take the case of postcards. I am not aware of any data laid before the Committee proving that postcards do not pay. Is there any evidence that Press telegrams do pay? Here are two branches of the service as to which I think the Minister would have been perfectly justified in making careful and close examination to see to what extent they either pay or lose.

Mr. KELLAWAY: I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard my statement, but I did give figures to-day showing the loss on postcards.

Mr. SPENCER: I did not I confess, hear the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. At any rate he has not given us any conclusive evidence with regard to Press telegrams. If it is true that the postcard service does pay, then
the right hon. Gentleman ought to ask himself whether, by the imposition of an additional charge, he is going to derive an advantage in the shape of increased revenue, such as he seems to contemplate. I cannot speak with any authority, but the opinion of those who can do so is that if this further impost is applied to this service it is going to have the effect of lessening the number of postcards sent through the post, and therefore instead of deriving more money from this particular branch of the service the right hon. Gentleman will get less revenue, while the impost will also have a very serious effect on trade so far as postcards are concerned. I am not going to deal with circulars, which already have been ably dealt with, nor with telegrams, but I suggest that instead of seeking to contract the service that his Department is rendering, the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to see whether he can expand in some degree that service. It has been put to him that there is a large field of service which has proved highly remunerative in other countries, and which he might well adopt, namely, postal cheques. The system of postal cheques has been adopted on the Continent in Germany, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, France, and other countries, with a great deal of advantage to the people of those countries. I understand that in 1917 the transactions in Germany amounted to no less than £5,000,000, and that upon that a profit of £1,000,000 was made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Profiteering!"] I am not suggesting for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman should make the same charge, but here is a branch of service which may be highly convenient to the British public and at the same time may be highly remunerative to the Department concerned. In the United Kingdom we have over 11,000,000 active depositors with the Post Office, the average amount standing in the name of those depositors being about £19 18s. If we were to adopt the system of postal cheques in this country for a body of people whose savings are so small that they will never think of going to a large bank, but simply deposit their money in a savings bank, it would be highly convenient to those small depositors, and I believe it would encourage thrift, while at the same time it would prove a growing source of revenue. The right hon. Gentleman will
do well, not to see in what direction he can contract the usefulness of his Department to the British public for the purpose of saving revenue, but rather to direct his attention to those avenues where he can best expand the service, and by that expansion confer on the British public great advantages from the work of his Department.

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: The right hon. Gentleman did much to disarm criticism amongst many Members who were much opposed to these new proposals by his frank and lucid statement, and more especially by the notification that the proposed increases in the rates for foreign printed matter have been withdrawn. That was my principal ground of objection to the proposals, but I put very little short of that my strong objection to the increase in the postcard rate. It is a truism to say that the post card is the poor man's letter-card. What he wants to write—I do not know that it conveys very much, but he seems to like to write it—is something like this:
Dear Sal.—I hope this finds you in the pink, as it leaves me.
Apparently, now, if he wants to send a postcard for a penny, he will have to step into a shop, buy a picture postcard, and reduce the number of words to five:
 In pink; hope you same,
or something of that sort. I am strongly opposed to this increase in the postcard rate, and I shall feel it my duty to vote against the Government on account of it. The right hon. Gentleman will say: "We must make the service pay." I have never been able to understand why you cannot have the two accounts separate, the telephones and telegraphs in one, which are, so to speak, the privilege and luxury of the richer classes, and the postal rates, which largely affect the lower classes, in another category, and unless the right hon. Gentleman can give some hope that that can be done I am afraid I shall find it my duty to vote against the Government. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to postcards and told us the handling of postcards was carried on at a slight loss. As with the sliding scale the wages automatically drop that slight loss would disappear and very soon postcards would be handled, not at a loss, but at a slight profit.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: I was very much struck by the speech of an hon. Member who referred to the cost of elections and the impossibility of keeping within the prescribed limit, particularly under the new Regulations. I under stand in this country there is an allowance of 5d. per head of the electorate. In Ireland we are only allowed 2d. per head, and if it is impossible for English Members not to exceed their allowance how much more impossible will it be for us there. I hope the Postmaster-General will take that into consideration in regard to the extra allowance during election time. I wish he would try to get once more into his control the Post Office in Ireland. The may seem an extraordinary request to make, but when we get letters passed by the censor of the Irish Republican Army which have come through the Post Office in Ireland, I am sure the House will appreciate the reasonableness of the request. I was rather disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the very serious question of the building programme of the Post Office. I hope we shall be given some information with regard to this extraordinary expenditure. May I give one or two instances. Take, for instance, General Post Offices. The original total Estimate was £465,000. The revised total Estimate is £502,000. Mount Pleasant new letter-sorting office, original Estimate, £120,000, new Estimate, £418,000. Mount Pleasant new Stamp Office, £59,000, original Estimate, revised Estimate, £112,000. Accrington new Post Office, original Estimate, £6,786, revised Estimate, £23,895. I could go on multiplying these. Liverpool, £83,060, revised Estimate, £310,000. In an explanation of the Post Office Estimates the House ought to get some idea why all this additional expenditure is necessary. If these Post Offices had been carried on in their present buildings for 30 years, surely, in the present financial position of the country they could be carried on for a few years longer. When everybody is talking about economy, surely we might try to do without this additional expenditure for a year or two. It is possible that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain satisfactorily why these additional Estimates are required, but we have not had that explanation yet.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I wish briefly to supplement what was said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Spencer) with regard to the burden which is cast upon some of the lower paid workers by the withdrawal of the Sunday delivery. In my own district the abolition of the Sunday post—a reform with which everyone will agree in the main—will fall heavily upon the low paid workers Other speakers have said that the burden should not fall more heavily upon the lower paid staff than on the other portion of the Post Office staff. I am in formed that in my district the outdoor workers will suffer a weekly reduction of from 7s. to 17s. per week. That is a statement I have received from the local branch of post office workers, but it has not been possible for me to verify that statement. If there is any substance in it I hope that, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, conferences will take place between the Post Office officials and their staff so as to alleviate as far as possible the burden which falls on men whose basic rate is only £2 a week plus bonus. We all agree that the lesser amount of Sunday work that is done, the better. In fact, the Post Office officials who have written to me complaining of the unequal burden on the lower paid workers, say that they are in favour of the abolition of Sunday labour; but they do ask for some consideration in this case.
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) who suggested that the reduction should only fall on the higher grade officials. I do not agree with him that a trade Department such as the Post Office should bring down its scale of pay to that which might be given in the professional classes. Criticism has been made from various quarters that the Post Office has no right to pay officials in their trade Department more than is paid to the scholastic or professional classes. That is a very false comparison to make, because if you have a civil service engaged in a trading Department, if it is to be economically worked and run on business lines, you must pay for brains. You must pay for the brains that will be demanded as a competing value in the ordinary commercial world. Although the pension has to be taken into account as a set-off against some of the advantages that the outsider gets, the comparison ought to be more comparable with that of men similarly engaged outside in a trad-
ing Department, than with the professional class.
When you are making these reductions in the Sunday service, I hope that consideration will be given to the collection of night letters not merely in centres such as London and the capital cities, but in practically all the large towns, because the postal service as a whole yields a profit, and it is unfair that a service which yields a profit should be penalised by the lack in any large district of the collection of Sunday mails which prevents letters posted in that area getting to their destination before Tuesday morning. Let those Departments which suffer a loss, such as the telephones and the telegrams, bear their share, but do not penalise the postal service to a larger extent than is necessary. Let us have a Sunday night collection, whereby letters would be delivered on the Monday morning and not on the Tuesday morning.
With regard to the question of economy—for I quite realise that the Post Office must be run on self-supporting lines—does the Postmaster-General realise that in 1913–14 the Estimates were £27,000,000 and that to-day they are £70,000,000? That increase is more than is due to the increased cost of commodities and the increased cost of living. Has he taken into consideration the reduction in prices which has already begun, and which we hope will be accelerated? Owing to the depreciation of trade the volume of work which the Post Office has to handle will unfortunately not be more than in 1913–14. Therefore, is it not possible with internal economy and improved administration to reduce the £70,000,000 by £3,500,000 rather than save that amount by penalising the service? I know that every one of us makes demands for his own particular constituency for improved facilities, but those demands are not at variance with the desire for economy, because the better the service the greater the return to the Department. Therefore, while one presses for these increased facilities, we can at the same time ask the Postmaster-General to see that economies are carried out so that the figure of £70,000,000 will show a reduction enabling us to avoid those other reductions in service which will prove to be a false economy.

Mr. PEASE: Last year the Post Office had no opportunity of having its Esti-
mates taken, and I think that that was a great pity, because there are a great many false ideas which can be dealt with by the Postmaster-General or the representative of the Post Office on an occasion of this kind. First, I would like to say that personally I appreciate what has been said in regard to the Postmaster-General's speech this afternoon. I think that the eulogy which has fallen from the lips of so many Members must cause satisfaction to himself, especially as this is the first opportunity which he has had of addressing the House on the subject after a comparatively short experience of the position which he now occupies. I would like also to say a few words in regard to the question of the bonus. Plainly we are bound to carry out the undertaking in regard to the bonus. For many years during which I have been a Member of this House I have never before known the question of too much pay being raised. On previous occasions hon. Members always raised the question of the service not receiving adequate remuneration. On the 18th March last the President of the Board of Trade, referring to this question of the bonus, said that the House approved the principle of war bonus in December last year. He went on to say:
Do not let anyone say there are other people in just the same position.
As far as we are concerned, the House has approved this bonus, and we have to take into account the fact that for some time the employés of the Post Office did not receive the full amount which they would have received for bonus.
The figures already have been given by the Postmaster-General, but as there are more Members in the House now I would like to give them again. I would like also to say, in regard to this question, that nobody could expect the Post Office worker, as the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) suggested, to work at the old rates of pay. Therefore the only question that arises is as to whether the bonus is the proper amount or not.

Sir C. OMAN: I did not say he ought to work at the old rates, but that he should not have three times as much as the old pay.

Mr. PEASE: It has been pointed out by the Postmaster-General that the rates of pay now are a little over the cost of living basis, but before the present rates
were paid the Post Office employé was receiving less than the amount which he should have received on the cost of living basis. It is also perfectly plain that when the review of the bonus takes place on 1st September there will be a fall in the bonus. In any case, what we have to consider at the moment is whether we are to honour the cheque which has been given. I do not think that any hon. Member, when he considers the matter from the fundamental point of view, would believe that we have any right to act in opposition to the decision I have mentioned. I wish to emphasise one point in regard to industry generally. I realise that it has been a great benefit to have a sliding scale. As one who has some opportunity of judging the case from outside, I believe a very large number of industries would be in a much more satisfactory position if they had sliding scales, so that when wages had to be reduced the reduction could be made without the feeling of friction which now exists in many quarters. An hon. Member has asked how we have estimated the loss on postcards. That is a very difficult question to answer. The same thing applies to all the departments of the Post Office. There is a large number of standing charges to be taken into account. Anyone connected with a large business knows that when you take maintenance charges into account it is almost impossible, except approximately, to find out what the charge is in regard to any particular item. When you have an increase total of postcards and letters, as far as sorting is concerned, it is just as difficult to sort a postcard as a letter. We have to accept the advice of those best qualified to give it as to the cost of handling and conveyance and other matters. A question has been raised as to Press telegrams I have been Assistant Postmaster-General for a considerable number of years, and I held that position in the first Coalition Government under Sir Herbert Samuel. I remember that at that time we received a deputation on the question. The House thinks, naturally, that this affects to a great extent the large newspaper proprietors of the country. It does not, to any great extent, because they have their private wires. But there are many struggling newspapers, and the fact placed before us was that many of them would be almost in a state of bankruptcy if they
had to pay the full charge for Press telegrams. An arrangement was made by which an increase was paid by them, and as far as I remember, that increase took place in January of last year. I think it may be reconsidered, but I do not know exactly what is the position of news papers in the country, and the question of the ratio of the increase is a serious one.
The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gilbert) said there were too many deliveries in London. That is one of the questions always mentioned on occasions of this kind, and it is said, "Why do you not save money by having fewer deliveries?" We are advised there would be practically no saving at all by having fewer deliveries. The fact is, the first delivery would be unmanageable if some other delivery did not take place, and the carrying of this large number of letters would involve the employment of part time men, which is very difficult to arrange. This is one of the most difficult things with which we have to deal, and as far as the trade union is concerned, the difficulty of arranging terms is well known. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) raised again a question which he has raised many times. He did me the honour of coming down to the Post Office and talking it over with me. I asked him to wait on the official in charge of that and he did so, and put his case almost as forcibly as he did this after-noon—at least I expect he did. I would have been very glad, had it been possible for me to comply with that request as with any request from the hon. Member, but unfortunately it was found in this particular case it meant giving privileges to his constituency against other applications which were made. All I could do was to accept the advice given by our representative in that district, and he said he thought this place Ruspidge was served as well as, or better, than other places in the district. I am sure he will not agree with that—

Mr. WIGNALL: No, I do not.

Mr. PEASE: But he will realise I would be very glad if I could say "Yes" to his request. With regard to my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) I believe he recognised that the Post Office is not quite so badly managed as some people
think when he said, so far as he knew, there was no possibility of increasing the staff. He spoke as one who has some considerable experience in regard to questions of this kind. I am quite sure he speaks in this House with considerable weight and everybody knows—although most disagree with him—he is very honest in his opinions. Many Members of this House if they came to the Post Office or to one of the savings banks, telegraph offices, or any of the offices, would find them not so badly managed as they might possibly think from reading articles in the Press. I invite hon. Members to come down and I am quite certain they will be extremely interested. It is rather absurd to read some of the statements that are made with regard to chaos in the Post Office. The men who are there are practically the same men, in almost all cases, who were employed there about 3 years ago when the surplus was £7,000,000.
They are working on the same lines. The fact is that their charges in every respect are very much increased, and therefore there is no profit, but a loss. If you apply the same principles to any other business in the world, you will have exactly the same result. I believe that if hon. Members would take the trouble just to examine the working of these offices from the inside, and would take the advice of those who have real knowledge of the question, they would find that the Post Office is run on business lines.
With regard to the question of dividing the Post Office Department from the Telephone Department, that is impossible. If I had more time I could give some reasons for that, but I will only one. That is that in all the provincial districts the telephones are in the post offices and it is quite impossible to run a separate company in regard to that.

Lieut.-Colonel D. WHITE: It is separate accounts I want.

Mr. PEASE: I was not dealing with that particular question. I know what my hon. and gallant Friend means in regard to that. The hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine) spoke of the cost of postcards, and quoted a protest from the Church Reform League and other societies. I sympathise with him in regard to the increase in the cost of post cards, and should be very glad indeed if
it could be abolished. The hon. Member, however, has no alternative. That is the point. I do not think any hon. Member has suggested any alternative for finding the very large sum of money that is required.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is to be the permanent policy of the Department to charge 1½d. for the postcard, in other words, to pay for the handling of the postcards? In former days it was always understood that the postcard did not pay because the poorer people were able to use it. I represent a constituency—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order," "Speech"]—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not out of Order in putting a question to the Postmaster-General.

Mr. MURRAY: I represent a constituency which will be affected to the extent of about 90 per cent. by this particular increase. I only wish to know if this is to be permanent?

Mr. PEASE: My right hon. Friend gave a complete answer to that in his speech this afternoon. He said that so far as these charges were concerned if the revenue were obtained there would probably be no reason why we should not have penny postage again and halfpenny postcards. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) mentioned express letters. These express letters can be sent by the Post Office in London, Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Birmingham, and Sheffield. So far as the Sunday post is concerned, the letters that cannot be delivered will be delivered in London on the following morning. With regard to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman), I quite admit that there is a very considerable increase in the charge on postcards, and that this will affect the printing trade for which he spoke. Personally I should be very glad indeed if it were possible for this extra charge to continue for a short time only. Under existing circumstances, however, it is quite impossible for the Postmaster-General to withdraw it.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) made a very strong charge against the central staff of the Post Office, and suggested that
the Post Office would be better without a great many of its representatives. It is hardly necessary to deal with a charge of that kind, which only shows that the hon. Member has really no knowledge with regard to the matter. A statement was also made with regard to the amount of money paid to the Post Office servants, but a basic salary of £1,200 to the chief engineer of a department which has between 20,000 and 30,000 men in it is perfectly absurd, and cannot be, from an economic point of view, a wise policy. We as a country have been living in a fools' paradise. We all expected after the War to get large dividends, to work less time, and to get higher wages. As far as the Post Office is concerned, I consider it has been well managed, and as far as the particular case of the workers is concerned, odd cases have been suggested in regard to men who have perhaps not done as much work as they might have done, but we can find hard cases in every walk of life. The question of the efficiency of the telephone service has not been raised to-night, but if I had the opportunity I could give figures of tests made in London recently as compared with last year, and I could show conclusively that the telephone service has improved in the way I said it would improve a year ago. In regard to the bonus, it is plain that if the Committee decides to honour the cheque with regard to the wages of the Post Office staff they ought to vote for this Estimate. In regard to increased facilities, I am convinced that if Rowland Hill were to come back from that sphere which all deceased Post-masters-General inhabit to this sublunary planet he would not think it possible to put forward a penny postage, because the penny has not the same purchasing value to-day as it had in the days gone by.

Sir A. FELL: If a Division is taken on the Amendment, will it be possible to move another reduction on another subject?

The CHAIRMAN: If the reduction moved by the hon. Member for Wednesbury were to be carried, that would settle the question that a certain reduced sum should be granted to His Majesty, but if it were rejected the Vote would stand and could come on another day, and a different reduction could then be moved.

Question put "That a sum, not exceeding £40,165,187, be granted for the said service."

The Committee divided: Ayes 118; Noes 196.

Division No. 158.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Polson, Sir Thomas A.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Kannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Remnant, Sir James


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Robertson, John


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Holmes, J. Stanley
Rose, Frank H.


Briant, Frank
Hopkins, John W. W.
Royce, William Stapleton


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Bromfield, William
Houston, Robert Patterson
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Brown, Major D. C.
Irving, Dan
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jephcott, A. R.
Spencer, George A.


Bruton, Sir James
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Swan, J. E.


Cairns, John
Kennedy, Thomas
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Kenyon, Barnet
Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Lawson, John James
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Waterson, A. E.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Wignall, James


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Mills, John Edmund
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Erskine, J. M. M.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Murchison, C. K.
Wintringham, Thomas


Gilbert, James Daniel
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Gillis, William
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Glanville, Harold James
Myers, Thomas



Gould, James C.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Neil


Grant, James Augustus
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Maclean.


Gretton, Colonel John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Coats, Sir Stuart
Gregory, Holman


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Greig, Colonel James William


Austin, Sir Herbert
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cope, Major William
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Harris, Sir Henry Percy


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Barnston, Major Harry
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Dean, Commander P. T.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hinds, John


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Edgar, Clifford B.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Betterton, Henry B.
Elveden, Viscount
Hood, Joseph


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Evans, Ernest
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)


Blair, Sir Reginald
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Fell, Sir Arthur
Hurd, Percy A.


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Johnson, Sir Stanley


Brassey, H. L. C.
Foreman, Sir Henry
Johnstone, Joseph


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Forrest, Walter
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Butcher, Sir John George
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George


Casey, T. W.
Glyn, Major Ralph
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Goff, Sir R. Park
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)


Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
Green, Albert (Derby)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Lindsay, William Arthur


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir H. C. (P'nrith)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Preston, W. R.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Prescott, Major W. H.
Tryon, Major George Clement


McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Wallace, J.


Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Reid, D. D.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Waring, Major Walter


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Manville, Edward
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Matthews, David
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Mitchell, William Lane
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Royden, Sir Thomas
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Winterton, Earl


Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wise, Frederick


Morris, Richard
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Wolmer, Viscount


Morrison, Hugh
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Murray, William (Dumfries)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Nall, Major Joseph
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
Woolcock, William James U.


Neal, Arthur
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.
Worsfold, T. Cato


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Steel, Major S. Strang
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Parker, James
Stewart, Gershom
Younger, Sir George


Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Sturrock, J. Leng



Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Perkins, Walter Frank
Sutherland, Sir William
Mr. McCurdy and Colonel Leslie


Perring, William George
Taylor, J.
Wilson.


Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)



Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again upon Monday next (13th June).

MOTHERS' PENSIONS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Bill cannot proceed. It ought to have been founded on a Money Resolution.

Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes after Eleven o'lock.